Israel is being painted as the agressor in this most recent conflict. This is just patently wrong.
Israel is being accused of being ‘disproportionate’ (by the media, not the government). This, too, is just wrong.
And here is why:
Israel had two soldiers kidnapped by a terrorist organisation that, while not openly supported by the Lebanese government, is tolerated through a combination of apathy and weakness. That organisation brought upon itself military pressure designed to disable the terrorist organisation and bring about the release of their soldiers. Neither of these goals have yet been achieved (one of which is clearly in the hands of Hezbollah to bring about). If the goal were achieved in one hour and the bombings continued — then the response would have been disproportionate; but as the release of their soldiers was not brought about, one could suggest that Israel’s response was not strong enough.
Today’s Spectator goes into some detail about the likely long-term effects of capitulation to Islamofacists, but I will be less dramatic and leave myself open to fewer claims of “you were wrong”. Suffice it to say, if we do not stop terrorist organisations from attacking the West (in which I include Israel) with no ‘freedom’ issue at its source, then we will be committing ourselves to a much longer fight with militant Islam.
The ANC had something to fight for that could be brought about by those in charge… They were also fighting a clear wrong. The IRA had something to fight for which was not a clear wrong (democratic as it all was)… Hezbollah do not want anything more than an Islamic hegemony… This is anti-democratic and so indefensible.
July 21st, 2006 at 2:20 pm
I totally disagree with you there Gav. The Israeli response is highly disproportionate and you’re almosty admitting that an ‘us’ life is worth much more than a ‘them’.
The tally so far: Lebanese civilians dead: 300 - Israeli civilians dead: 15.
Number of Israeli’s being held in the Lebanon: 2 - Lebanese being held in Israel: around 9,000 (most taken when Lebanon was OCCUPIED by Israel).
This all started when troubled flaired in Gaza. The heavy handed response by Israel made Hezbollah react. Nobody is blameless in the current conflict.
But a lot of your post depends on your definition of terrorism. I’d say that the Israelis are terrorizing more innocent Lebanese than vice versa. But if you fire your rockets from war planes and battleships into civilian areas then thats okay. It’s called ‘defense’ apparrently.
Since the Israeli withdrawl billions of dollars have been invested in the Lebanon on infrastructure, schools, hospitals, power stations etc.. This modernisation changed the feeling in the country and the Syrians were not tollerated, and they finally left. The same thing would have happened to Hezbollah but this Israeli response will change all that. Will Israel pick up the bill for this?
July 21st, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Gav, you’re not considering some important facts.
Firstly, this conflict involves three countries but only one army and one government. Hezbollah the terrorist organisation isn’t the government of Lebanon. There are government ministers under the name Hezbollah but they aren’t (as far as I know anyway) terrorists. The same goes for Hamas in Palestine. The same goes for Sinn Fein and the IRA in Ireland - we know that Sinn Fein is the political wing of the IRA, the only difference with Hamas and Hezbollah is that their political wings have the same name as the terrorist groups.
Israel the country is attacking Lebanon the country because of the actions of Hezbollah the terrorist organisation. Ok, Hezbollah is based in Lebanon and the Lebanese government is currently too weak to control them but the IRA were in the Republic of Ireland when they were bombing mainland Britain but the RAF didn’t carpet bomb Dublin in retaliation because that would be punishing the Irish people for the actions of a terrorist group. The fact that most Irish people supported the aims of the IRA the same as most Lebanese people support the aims of Hezbollah (to get rid of Israel) wouldn’t justify it.
The Lebanese government is too weak to handle Hezbollah but the Israeli attacks are further weakening the Lebanese government. When the Lebanese government collapses and Hezbollah sieze power the Israeli’s will launch another invasion. You don’t have to be a clairvoyant to see that one coming, just look at what they have been doing in Palestine - destroy communications and infrastructure so the Palestinian authorities are so handicapped that they can’t deal with Hamas and then they’ve got a perfect excuse to carry on doing what they’re doing.
The calls for Israel to act proportionately are a reminder to the Israeli’s of the international laws that they are breaking. International law says that a country’s response to an attack must be proportionate to the threat. Firstly, the Lebanese have not attacked Isreal - Hezbollah have and they aren’t the Lebanese government or acting on behalf of Lebanon in any official capacity. Secondly, the attack was the kidnap of two soldiers. Is the kidnap of two soldiers proportionate to the military action by Israel? Hundreds of civillians have been killed, hundreds more have been injured. Entire villages have been razed to the ground by F-16’s and artiliary fire. Power stations, factories and roads have been destroyed. A convoy of ambulances clearly marked as a relief aid convoy sent by the UAE and crossing the border from Syria has also been blown up. The Israeli’s have destroyed all routes in and out of Lebanon and are enforcing a naval and air blockade of the country. Even the Royal Navy had to ask the Israeli government for permission to evacuate our own civillians before the Israeli army blew them up too!
If Israel wants to attack Hezbollah and Hamas then they should ask for permission from the Lebanese and Palestinian governments to enter their country and take them out. They should provide the Lebanese and Palestinian governments with copies of their intelligence and where they intend to target the millitants. If they is an unacceptable risk of civillian casualties then they should be refused or - how’s this for a suggestion - the Israeli’s should assist the Lebanese or Palestinian authorities in taking them out. Despite their mutual hatred of each other, I think the Lebanese and Palestinian governments would rather work with the Israeli’s than suffer what they are going through now. The question is, would the Israeli’s rather work with their neighbours or bomb them into the stone age?
July 21st, 2006 at 4:56 pm
As you say Lebanon is unable to stop Hezbollah attacking Israeli civilians… What would you have Israel do? Allow it?
If Hezbollah can be destroyed then Israel can leave Lebanon and Lebanon really will be able to progress… If it can’t then we are in for a terrible future where terrorist organisations can continue to run amock across the middle east.
On asking the Palestinian governments for permission to attack Hezbollah I need clarification. Why would Palestinians be consulted on attacking a Lebanon-based terrorist organisation? Also, the Palestinian government (elected btw) was Hamas — the very same group that kidnapped the soldiers from within Israeli territory (the first invasion).
Further the Lebanese government openly allowed Hezbollah to import the missiles then used to attack Haifa in northern Israel — a naval and aerial blockade are the only ways Israel can be sure of stopping the attacks being made on its civilians.
Finally, Israel is attacking military targets with collatoral damage — Hezbollah is attacking Israeli civilians directly.
I think the tendency to sympathise with the small guys is understandable but in any similar situation we would all be shouting for the democracy and for destroying the advocates of terrorism. If we should not attack so as to reduce the number of terrorist recruits, then we have already lost.
Israel would not have attacked Lebanon, I am sure, if the UN were up to its job. But it isn’t. As soon as a terrorist organisation is able to create a state within a state, the UN should be managing the invasion and liberation of that country’s folk. That Israel has had to do this is more a reflection of the UN’s weakness and the irrational hatred Islamofacists feel than it is of Israel.
Finally (for a second time) Israel cannot be blamed for the Gaza kidnappings no matter how you look at it. They withdrew last year and, since then, have kept a close eye on the borders (I grant you). But they did pull out. Would they not be better advised to not risk any further attacks on Israel? Would they be better advised to allow Israel to come to trust its neighbours on a diplomatic stance? Yes.
But Palestine’s government attacked Israel…
July 21st, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Like I said Gav, if the Lebanese can’t deal with Hezbollah then Israel should ask permission to enter their country and do it for them or to work with the Lebanese. You just can’t take the unitary decision to violate another country’s borders like this.
I said that the Israeli’s should ask permission from Palestine and Lebanon if they wanted to go into those countries to go after Hamas and Hezbollah. I meant respectively, not cumulatively. ;o)
On the subject of the governments of those two countries - the Hamas government in Palestine is the political wing of the Hamas terrorist group the same as Sinn Fein is the political wing of the IRA. As I said, the only difference is that Sinn Fein has a different name to the IRA. The same applies to Hezbollah.
I’m not siding with the samll guys though, you should know me better than that. I’m simply looking at the situation and saying what I think is right and wrong. Terrorism is wrong, I’ve never said that it isn’t and the kidnap of the Israeli soldiers is wrong. However, the actions of Israel is way past wrong - it’s criminal.
Israel has pulled out of Gaza but they still control Paestinian borders, waters and airspace and since the Hamas government was democratically elected in free and fair elections the Israeli’s have withheld all international aid payments (they still retain control of this as well). Gaza is far from occupation in real terms - the tanks may be off the streets but the F-16’s are still patrolling the skies, their warships are still patrolling their seas and their soldiers are patrolling their borders. On a whim the Israeli’s can and do freely enter Palestine, do what they want, detroy what they want, take who they want and the Palestinians are powerless to resist while the US and UK stands back and allows Israel a free reign.
Israel isn’t just attacking military targets either. There are no military targets in Beirut, the milk factory they blew up wasn’t a military target and nor was the paper box factory. The convoy of cars full of civillians leaving Qana UN base after being instructed to evacuate their village by the ISraeli’s and turned away form the base also wasn’t a military target - unless Hezbollah has genetically engineered 8 year old girls capable of firing rocket launchers that is (see my blog).
Blaming the weakness of the UN is no excuse. If the UN was allowed to rein in Israel over the last few decades (ie. the Americans had their veto taken off them) then I very much doubt we would have this situation now. Israel has gone way past self defence, it is an aggressive bully and it is only this way because, like a spoilt child, it has been allowed to do what it wants. If the UN had been able to force Israel’s withdrawal from Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt when they were invaded and a UN or multi-national force sent in to protect Israel then the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah probably wouldn’t be here now and if they were then they wouldn’t have the support they do now. Hezbollah and Hamas were born as resistance groups during Israeli occupation weren’t they? So yes, you’re right, the UN is partly to blame in all this but whose fault is it that the UN is so weak?
July 21st, 2006 at 7:31 pm
this is a very hard one isnt it.
I think you made some very good points.
July 21st, 2006 at 7:45 pm
But again we look at Israel as the agressor in the 1967 war (or at least those who watch CNN/BBC or read the Independent/Granuaid). Israel was attacked, again, by those other countries — Israel then pursued an indefensible period of colonisation and refusing refugees the right to return (which now all sides have accepted as an inevitable fact). The areas it occupied it occupied after pushing back the aggressors of Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt.
But the thing that is inexcusable, in my mind, is terrorism — the deliberate murder of civilians. Whatever the casualties, Israel would not be targetting civilians in Lebanon right now.
To excuse Hamas and Hezbollah as a symptom of oppression is to buy into their religion-based hatred of Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah are inextricably linked to their political wings, but also they are purveyors of hate. Whatever Israel has done wrong in the past (and it has) does not excuse these organisations.
Right now I think there is a simple choice to make — accept that Israel absolutely must defend itself at this time or, sadly, allow militant Islam to continue to disrupt a country that was on the verge of West-Bank pull-out.
On the funds being withheld — that’s their right as occupiers of that land (and unable to pull out for obvious reasons). But let’s not forget that Hamas is refusing, even now, to acknowlegde Israel. If the Islamofacists stopped for a while we could see peace descend on the region as Israel slowly withdraws.
But peace is not what these people want — they want the spread of Islam to ‘infidel’ states. That’s the real fight going on here, and if we’re not careful we side with the bully (Hezbollah/Hamas) instead of with the victim who just happens to have a big friend…
Leanne, I think this is one of the hardest problems to solve in the world… As Justin at Chicken Yogurt says “Why can’t we just all get along?”
July 21st, 2006 at 9:56 pm
I know that it was Israel that was attacked first in 1967 but … and this is the important bit … they had all pledged to do so if Palestine was partitioned to create a Jewish state. It’s an important fact, not as an excuse for what is happening now, but to understand what the root cause of these problems are. Israel is where it is now because of a 2,000+ year old claim to that land. You’ve got to draw the line with these claims at some point - Jews had not owned that particular piece of land for over 2,000 years. Palestine was partitioned and Israel was created and, true to their word, the arab states all attacked Israel.
If the deliberate targetting of civillians is terrorism then Israel are terrorists. If they aren’t targetting civillians then why are they bombing villages, towns, cities? They are targetting urban areas and claiming that the civillian casualties (have you heard of any Hezbollah casualties yet?) are collateral damage. Funny that because the handful of Israeli civillians that have been killed aren’t called collateral damge, they’re murdered by terrorists. If you blow someone up with an F-16 or a tank or artiliary fire does it change from murder to collateral damage? That seems to be the only difference apart from the numbers (about 10 Lebanese to every Israeli isn’t it?).
Israel has to defend itself, I agree, but it isn’t acting in self defence. You have to get out of this mindset that it’s army against army, country against country, government against government - it isn’t, it’s Israel against a terrorist organisation and in going on the offensive Israel has attacked a sovereign nation and killed something in the region of 600 civillians. Now they are planning a ground invasion. I must be psychic, eh? That’s another UN resolution that Israel will be breaking - the one that says Israel has to respect Lebanon’s government (they’ve already broken the bit about respecting it’s borders). Still, another one is like pissing in the north sea.
On the subject of withheld funds - Israel has no right to wthhold them. Let’s not forget that Israel is illegally occupying Palestine. The UN has issued many resolutions ordering Israel to cease the occupation. Palestine is the only country recognised by the UN that is under foreign occupation. The aid is intended for the Palestinians and they certianly need it now but the Israeli’s are withholding it.
You didn’t answer my earlier question but kind of turned it round though:
“Despite their mutual hatred of each other, I think the Lebanese and Palestinian governments would rather work with the Israeli’s than suffer what they are going through now. The question is, would the Israeli’s rather work with their neighbours or bomb them into the stone age?”
What do you reckon?
July 22nd, 2006 at 2:07 am
The history of all the world is evolution, just one big fight for survival against rivals.
Israel can’t win in the long term because the Arab populations are exploding and Israel is only growing due to immigration its population is relatively stagnant.
Israel would have lost already if it wasn’t for American weapons.
I am usually pro American but if I lived in Beirut and saw the F16’s overhead I think I’d change my point of view pretty fast. The situation is a disaster for the US the pro Western Lebanonese government will fall and the US become an even bigger hate figure in the region.
WW3 is coming.
July 22nd, 2006 at 10:50 am
I wouldn’t say that WW3 is coming but we are witnessing the last pockets of US popularity dissappear. Many people liked, or at least tolerated, the US up to the end of Clinton’s reign.
My major problem is that Tony Blair is taking us down with them. So much for being a progressive leader. Oh well, at least Gordon should have a couple of years to reverse the trend.
July 22nd, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Tony Blair does whatever it takes to get in the limelight especially on the international stage.
While he goes around the world talking about helping everyone else, British wedding parties are getting stoned by gangs of hoodies..
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/218/218424_thugs_in_brick_attack_on_bride.html
July 23rd, 2006 at 11:15 am
Say what you will about Tony Blair, but I seriously see no political capital being made for him at any level out of supporting George Bush. Politically, I think this is the only principled thing he has done in politics ever (whether one agrees with the principle or not.)
One can see his other blatant politicking, like during the presidency of the EU when he gave up the rebate, for future political capital (perhaps as commissioner, for instance). There is nothing, other than a speaking tour or book deal in America, to justify his supporting Bush in the grand scheme of things.
That being said, if Israel was really targetting civilians, then the death toll would be much higher in (as we’re constantly reminded) the “formerly bustling southern suburbs of Beirut, home to half a million people”. I would wager that the mortality rate has probably dropped in comparison to business as usual, for that population. (If, as people seem to assert, body count really does count.) For instance, with no open businesses, the protection rackets can’t really run, can they?
July 23rd, 2006 at 2:44 pm
There is though James, going to war as one of the major instigators / leaders / power brokers etc, is the easyiest way to get your name down in bold letters in the history books and thats what Blair wants.
Everything he does, supporting Bush, Devolution, EU sellouts, IRA sellouts, he wants to do something big to be remembered by at every turn. Meanwhile Britain has rapidly increasing violent crime, wedding parties are getting stoned, and we have the highest threat of terrorism ever, and effectively have no working border control.
Tony Blair is a joke of a leader and whoever comes after him will have a serious mess to sort out.
July 23rd, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Meanwhile Britain has rapidly increasing violent crime, wedding parties are getting stoned, and we have the highest threat of terrorism ever, and effectively have no working border control.
Tony Blair is a joke of a leader
On that, I completely agree with you…
whoever comes after him will have a serious mess to sort out.
The problem there is that there is no one, I mean no one, pretending to throne, who would be inclined to actually fix the mess.
July 23rd, 2006 at 7:59 pm
To judge if Tony Blair is being honourable on Iraq, I ask myself the question if the Conservatives had made the desisions he has made on Iraq and Blair was in opposition, would he be supporting it then?
I don’t believe so. He comes from an anti-war anti nuclear background.
No way would he be cheerleading for the Conservatives and Bush if he wasn’t in the loop.
July 24th, 2006 at 11:26 am
I see that brave Israeli freedom fighters have blown up another convoy of Lebanese civillian Hezbollah terrorists as they were evacuating their village under Israeli instructions. This convoy of terrorists included women, children and a European journalist. They must have been recruited at the same time as the young girl that died when they blew up another convoy evacuating a village on their instructions. Hezbollah must be getting desperate for recruits if they’re recruiting young children and European journalists. Either that or the Israeli’s are taking the piss and deliberately targeting civillians but that surely couldn’t be the case because that would be illegal, immoral and the US and UK wouldn’t stand for that behaviour.
July 24th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
There’s absolutely no reason the Israelis would target civilians. Quite apart from the evilness of it, there’s no political capital or leverage to be gained.
July 24th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
From the growing list of casualities it appears that Israel just doesn’t care if the occupants of vehicles are Hezbollah or civilians. And you can’t terrorise a country and create a humanitarian crisis if you just target Hezbollah.
July 25th, 2006 at 5:03 am
Israel has every right to defend itself. But the problem is Isreal has been using very small amount of force for the last 50 years.
In the current conflict too I am dissatisfied with the way Isreal has been treating Lebanon with kidgloves. The only way to neutralize the terrorists is destroy them completely. Isreal and the Western countries ought to take over entire region of Lebanon, Pelestine, Syria and Iran. A occupation on lines of Iraq occupation by US will once for all solve the problem of terror
July 25th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
wow Indian Capitalist, do you really think ‘the West’ as the ability to do that?
I think a war against Syrian or/and Iran would be very different than Iraq, they both have chemical weapons with medium range missles, and Iran soon will have a nuke.
A French MP last week threatened Israel..
July 26th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Lebanon was not involved in the 1967 war. At that time Lebanon was the jewel of the Middle East. Years of civil war destroyed all that. Remember it has a large Christian minority.
Let’s hope once again it can regain its former magnificence.
July 26th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
I think Israel is entirely within their rights to launch this war. The Westphalian protocol does not apply here. Lebanon exists on a map but is not a nation-state in the sense of Ireland, for instance. Without such a state in place Israel has little other recourse.
That said, though they may be morally correct, I think strategically Israel’s making a huge mistake. Deploying a conventional war against a guerilla force is poor military judgement unless the intention is to spur the Lebanese population to keep the terrorists off their land. Otherwise, they would be better using para-military intelligence agencies in concert with special forces and surgical air-strikes.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:20 am
Lebanon isn’t just an area on a map. It is a state with different confessional groups that exist together in a very fragile political balance.
I’m not quite sure the American Vietnam war era thinking-we destoyed the town in order to save it- applies.
July 28th, 2006 at 10:46 am
If a country has membership of the UN it’s about as officially a country as you can get. Saying it’s not a state because it has a weak government is utter bollocks.