(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 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?