(no subject)

[teddywolf]

I'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.

Comments

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

I think they ALL should stop bombing IMMEDIATELY, no matter what. I'm tired of the whole "they started it!" "No, they did!" from every country involved. The entire world is sick of it. They just need to grow up and cut it out and spend all the money wasted on killing people on feeding all the orphans of their endless war. I don't give a *&% who started it or who acted last or anything anymore. Every time anyone gives any rationalization for either side having a "good reason" or "ample provocation" for bombing the other side, they are just feeding this endless war.

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.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

I think they ALL should stop bombing IMMEDIATELY, no matter what.

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.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

He is, actually. Is it then okay for the teacher to hit the other child? No. There are various forms of non-violent punishments that are employed.

"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.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

The analogy is not, Does the teacher hit the other child? It is, does your son hit back? If your son hits back, do you get upset with him for hitting back?

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.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

"Peace can only be achieved when both sides are willing to sit down and be reasonable in ways that overlap."

Yup.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

Then answer me this: do both sides have reasonable wants? If not both sides, then any side? If no side, why not?

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

I think most of the citizens in all the places involved mostly want to stop having bombs dropped on them. What the people in charge want? Well, that could be a different matter.
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.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

You did not actually answer my question. Do both sides have reasonable wants? If not both sides, then any side? If no side, why not?

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?

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

I am stopping because this is pointless, thus taking my own advice. Nothing I will say is going to get through, obviously, which is why this war rages on eternally.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

You are making an incorrect assumption - it is not pointless, and I do respond based on facts. You have dodged the question twice. Are you afraid of answering it?

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

You want an argument, on your own terms. I refuse to participate. I could play the game everyone else likes to play of bringing up this old grievance here and that one there on this side or that or the other, going back several hundred years, to explain why everyone feels in this situation they are the wronged party, but IT IS POINTLESS. You seemed to be asking, by way of analogy concerning the US, what Israel should do, or what we should do in the same situation. I answered, but it appears you do not like my answer. But it remains my answer - all the bombing should stop, by everybody. I know this makes me very unpopular, but other than an immediate cease to hostilities, I don't see anyway to avoid an eventual third world war.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

You might not understand me on this. I want all the bombing to stop as well; I want grievances redressed, too.

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.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

"Wars" on terrorists are generally pretty fruitless, as our own "war on terror" is proving to be.
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.

[mneme]

Ignore terorrists for the moment. What do you think the appraoch of cops to violent criminals should be? Should they be limited to awarding fines? Confiscating property? Locking people in jail?

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?

[awfief.livejournal.com]

I'll answer this. Both sides have reasonable wants. However, they are conflicting. Palestinians want the land for themselves, because it was taken away by the Brits to make a country for the Jews after World War II. Israelis want to remain in their country.

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.

[magid.livejournal.com]

Israel also leaflets before attacking, letting people know that it's going to happen, so they can leave if they're there. Not quite what's done by other factions...

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

I had not known that, actually.

It really does beg the question of how these tactics are even remotely similar.

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

All right, talk to me.

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.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

I do want people to talk to me. I also want them to understand that if they are more passionate about something when they have a dog in the fire, and less passionate when they don't, that they should understand me being a bit more passionate.

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.

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

Well, like I've said, if anyone starts throwing nukes, then the world won't have the luxury of caring who started it, maybe ever. We're all going to suffer if nukes start flying.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

No argument there.