The Lebanon Conflict - Page 3

I couldn't but help notice the death toll statistics published in the LA Times (Friday July 28 ) on the conflict in Israel and Lebanon. Israel, an ally of the U.S. in the so-called war on terror, has killed 441 people, only 12% being Lebanese or Hezbollah combatants, and almost 88% being civilians, including UN and Red Cross personnel. Hezbollah, on the other hand, long regarded as a terrorist organization in the U.S., has killed 52 Israelis, 63% being Israeli military and a comparatively far smaller proportion of 37% civilians.

Is it not true that one of the defining parameters of terrorism is targeting and killing innocent civilians? If so, it looks as if Israel, especially considering the fact they use "precision guided weapons", is rather more deserving of the "terrorism" label. And if so, does not the fact that much of Israel's weaponry is supplied by the U.S. make the unbelievably rank, stinking, duplicity even more piquant?

Hezbollah is targeting civilians. They are not killing many because most of their rockets land in fields or in water.

....and nearly 90% of Lebanese casualties are civilians. If the Israelis are using "precision weapons" against Hezbolllah targets, either (1) the guidance systems of these weapons is run by Windows, (2) the operators have been smoking too blond hashish or (3) the weapons are working as advertised, and they are deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians. I think (3) is the most likely answer.

Yeah yeah, asymmetrical warfare, blah blah fvcking blah. If you are defending yourself against a military possessing the world's most advanced weaponry supplied by the world's sole superpower, which often attacks from an unassailable position several miles above your head at supersonic speeds, are you going to jump about and shake your fists on the roof of a Beirut apartment block with a banner reading "Allah is Great" in arabic, waving an AK47 and screaming obscenities at the sky? Like, d'oh.

I know its politically incorrect to say this, but the Israeli military has earned the status of just another terrorist organization, but with a huge budget to boot. They are no better than Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad. Why should the Jewish religion of the Israeli nation/military shelter them from the standards everyone else in the world is expected to abide by?

One standard and law for all, is what creates peace. Obviously the powers that be don't want that, at any price.

Peace isn't peace unless it is a prolonged peace.

Exactly so, and that is why the brokers of the conflict(s), on both sides, do not want it, because peace hits their pocketbooks the hardest.

This article explains alot with regard to the vocabulary and biases used here.

Nick

Israel puts their soldiers on the battlefield and so naturally, their soldiers will die. Hezbollah hides in cities, behind women and children. When the are attacked, they know it will result in civilian caualties, so they continue to hide behind civilians.

If Hezbollah moved out from behind the civilians then you might see the numbers reverse, but they won't, will they.

Of course thats the pro-Israeli way of seeing the situation, and published on a website (NRO) that boasts authors, for example Michael Ledeen, whose pieces verge on Islamophobia. The other side could also quite do a similar intellectual exercise of their behalf with very little trouble, re. vocabulary.

In the article, the statement "as Israel struggle to survive" is typically misleading. Who are they kidding? Israel is quite capable of looking after itself, considering its huge (nuclear) arsenal, and well-trained and equipped military, its very close relationship with the industrialized world, its peaceful relationship with neighbors Egypt and Jordan, and its non-requirement of compliancy to both international law and UN resolutions.

Good point. But in that case, if Hezbollah is truly hiding behind civilians, and those civilians end up paying the price, isn't it normal to expect Hezbollah to die too, just as those civilians did? I mean, if Hezbollah is hiding behind those civilians, and Israel is attacking those civilians, then Hezbollah must die too because they are together with the civilians.

But they're clearly not. So, they either a) disappear like ghosts as soon as "precision bombing" ensues, or b) they're not really hiding behind civilians because it's logistically impossible for them to be hiding there, and not dying, when the civilians they're hiding with are dying.


Far as I know, right now they're fighting in this abandoned border village in Southern Lebanon. No civilians, just Hezbollah and IDF. 11 IDF soldiers killed in that village, yet no Hezbollah. Why is that?

I think the Lebanese casualties definitely includes Hezbollah fighters. I doubt they can be distinguished easily. So the figure is somewhat inflated, but innocents are clearly being killed.

With regard to the IDF deaths, they announced they were coming when they told civilians to get out of the way. Hezbollah had a lot of time to booby trap "high value" locations and plan ambushes.

The Israelis are good, but not invulnerable.

Many Lebanese tried to flee, but found roads blocked or impassable to Israeli bomb damage, and many bridges have similarly been taken out; the "warning" issued by the IDF was by and large unheedable in many areas of S Lebanon. This action has inflated civilian casualties undoubtedly.

Its so easy to kill kids when you target them with precision weapons. Here is the terrorism that Americans find acceptable, presumably because it is committed not just by US allies, but by a nation of people who have a license to do whatever they wish.

Oh, its just a few dozen arab kids, nothing to see here. move along now.

They drop bombs, we go shopping.

2006 and people are still fighting it out as brutally as they did back in the mid-evil ages.
You'd think people that are supposed to be SO intelligent and smarter than everyone else could find a way to PEACE instead of using bloody force and killing??
Peaceful solution? not likely...why? probably becuase their's money involved.
Behind the scenes, there's probably a small group of RICH people who are getting more RICH off this conflict...

At this point the UN is looking piss poor in their jobs.
I'm sick of seeing people die on both sides every morning in the news. I dont want to grow insensitive to it, I want it to stop. and the fact that children are getting killed with no sympathy from either side is very disturbing...

yes there are a-holes on both sides who are ignorant and just not making the right decisions. they need to be weeded out. the real leaders need to get together and has out a peacful existence..

never mind all the hundreds of years of conflict...SCREW the past and loof forward to a peaceful future...

look at what the litle children in hte middle of all that conflict have to look forward to...good grief, the grown-ups there are just educating the kids in hate and suffering...and when they grow up, they'll be like their paretns before them, hateful and suspicious...and the cycle goes on...

why can't both sides take the high road and work out a peaceful solution?
why?
because they suck...and they're a bunch of a-holes...
IMHO...

Human shields my ass. Israel doesn't give a rat's ass about the welfare of Lebanese (or Palestinian) civilians. Hezbollah etc has zero to gain by installing missile batteries in residential areas. It's Israeli propaganda, and the western media has swallowed the bait, as always. THE ENTIRE HUMAN SHIELD PREMISE IS 100% REDUNDANT, TOTAL AND UTTER GARBAGE. Wake up!!

DEBUNKED

Edited to remove expletive.

It seems like Israel gets pretty bad press, which is reason enough for Hezbollah to do it. Hezbollah would get wiped out very quickly without human shields and a population to blend in to - their only hope is to get Israel to kill enough children so that the rest of the world steps in and saves Hezbollah from Israel.

Weren't you the one claiming that Israel would 'destroy' Hezbollah in 2 days or so? It's been 2+ weeks... they haven't been able to control even the closes village to the border. Um, que passo?

On the other hand:

Oren Ben-Dor: Who are the real terrorists in the Middle East?

What exactly is being defended? Is it the citizens of Israel or the nature of the Israeli state?

Published: 26 July 2006

As its citizens are being killed, Israel is, yet again, inflicting death and destruction on Lebanon. It tries to portray this horror as necessary for its self-defence. Indeed, the casual observer might regard the rocket attacks on Israeli cities such as Haifa and my own home town, Nahariya, as justifying this claim.

While states should defend their citizens, states which fail this duty should be questioned and, if necessary, reconfigured. Israel is a state which, instead of defending its citizens, puts all of them, Jews as well as non-Jews, in danger.

What exactly is being defended by the violence in Gaza and Lebanon? Is it the citizens of Israel or the nature of the Israeli state? I suggest the latter. Israel's statehood is based on an unjust ideology which causes indignity and suffering for those who are classified as non-Jewish by either a religious or ethnic test. To hide this primordial immorality, Israel fosters an image of victimhood. Provoking violence, consciously or unconsciously, against which one must defend oneself is a key feature of the victim-mentality. By perpetuating such a tragic cycle, Israel is a terrorist state like no other.

Many who wish to hide the immorality of the Israeli state do so by restricting attention to the horrors of the post-1967 occupation and talking about a two-state solution, since endorsing a Palestinian state implicitly endorses the ideology behind a Jewish one.

The very creation of Israel required an act of terror. In 1948, most of the non-Jewish indigenous people were ethnically cleansed from the part of Palestine which became Israel. This action was carefully planned. Without it, no state with a Jewish majority and character would have been possible. Since 1948, the "Israeli Arabs", those Palestinians who avoided expulsion, have suffered continuous discrimination. Indeed, many have been internally displaced, ostensibly for "security reasons", but really to acquire their lands for Jews.

Surely Holocaust memory and Jewish longing for Eretz Israel would not be sufficient to justify ethnic cleansing and ethnocracy? To avoid the destabilisation that would result from ethical inquiry, the Israeli state must hide the core problem, by nourishing a victim mentality among Israeli Jews.

To sustain that mentality and to preserve an impression of victimhood among outsiders, Israel must breed conditions for violence. Whenever prospects of violence against it subside, Israel must do its utmost to regenerate them: the myth that it is a peace-seeking victim which has "no partner for peace" is a key panel in the screen with which Israel hides its primordial and continuing immorality.

Israel's successful campaign to silence criticism of its initial and continuing dispossession of the indigenous Palestinians leaves the latter no option but to resort to violent resistance. In the wake of electing Hamas - the only party which, in the eyes of Palestinians, has not yet given up their cause - the Palestinian population of Gaza and the West Bank were subjected to an Israeli campaign of starvation, humiliation and violence.

The insincere "withdrawal" from Gaza, and the subsequent blockade, ensured a chronicle of violence which, so far, includes Palestinian firing of Kasem rockets, the capture of an Israeli soldier and the Israeli near re-occupation of Gaza. What we witness is more hatred, more violence from Palestinians, more humiliation and collective punishments from Israelis - all useful reinforcement for the Israeli victim mentality and for the sacred cow status of Israeli statehood.

The truth is that there never could have been a partition of Palestine by ethically acceptable means. Israel was created through terror and it needs terror to cover-up its core immorality. Whenever there is a glimmer of stability, the state orders a targeted assassination, such as that in Sidon which preceded the current Lebanon crisis, knowing well that this brings not security but more violence. Israel's unilateralism and the cycle of violence nourish one another.

Amidst the violence and despite the conventional discourse which hides the root of this violence, actuality calls upon us to think. The more we silence its voice, the more violently actuality is sure to speak.

In Hebrew, the word elem (a stunned silence resulting from oppression or shock) is etymologically linked to the word almut (violence). Silence about the immoral core of Israeli statehood makes us all complicit in breeding the terrorism that threatens a catastrophe which could tear the world apart.


The writer teaches the philosophy of law and political philosophy at University of Southampton

Can someone remind me how you distinguish a Hezbulah fighter from a Lebanese civilian?

They wear easy to spot military uniforms, don't they?

They respect laws of war and things like Geneva Conventions...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmk3BEKziJU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqGjz7iJTns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avm-9IglHTg&NR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ8fSkSMhjw

...don't they?

I was expecting a full ground invasion of a 100K+ troops, and I was not expecting that pussy of a Lebanese president siding with Hezbollah.

Same way you distinguish an Israeli civilian from an IDF fighter. So when rockets land in Haifa and whatnot, there's no complaining. We told them to leave Haifa and go to Stockholm, so it's all legit.

You said 2 days or so. You didn't say how many troops "you expected". There's no qualifying statements now.


Yeah, really, he should side with those that are bombing his state's infrastructure and killing 720 civilians (so far), including 15 mentally disabled kids. What a pussy!

It doesn't much matter at this point. Iran will soon announce it has nuclear capability or will nuke Israel. depending on how you read the words of Iran's Hitler about the upcoming announcement...

"WILL LET THE MOSLEM WORLD AROUND THE GLOBE KNOW THAT AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR ARMS OR NUCLEAR CAPABILITY EVER AGAIN"

and his statement just before the current conflict ensued, at a high level forum:

"the main issue faced by the Islamic world is Israel's existence. The Islamic countries should mobilize their efforts to do away with this issue," and "all the conditions for eliminating the Zionist regime are currently in place."

I guess we shall soon see.

ADDED

More projecting form Tehran. When will we take these people seriously?

Tehran, Iran, Mar. 15 Irans radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that the circumstances were ripe for the collapse of the Zionist regime and that the West was highlighting the Islamic Republics nuclear program in the world arena in order to divert attention away from the issue of Palestine.

The regime occupying Qods (Jerusalem) was set up to create insecurity and confrontation in our region. If one day tranquillity came about, it would mean the death of this regime, Ahmadinejad said in the northern town of Ramyan during a speech broadcast live on state television.

Our enemies on the one hand oppose our nations acquisition of nuclear energy and on the other hand want to divert the attention of other nations from the key issue of Palestine to give an opportunity to the Zionist regime to prolong its existence, he said.

One of the main reasons why the big powers oppose Iran on the nuclear issue is for the sake of the Zionist regime, so as to let this regime live on. But they are unaware that not only will the Iranian nation continue in the path of obtaining nuclear energy till the end, it will not even for one instant divert its attention from the issue of Palestine.

The regime occupying Qods [Israel] is the key to [Western] countries domination in Muslim lands, and with every blow at this occupying regime, its the pillars of the Global Arrogance (the West) that are targeted.

Totally agree and thank God. We could finally see the end of this sick murderous cult.

I won't hold my breath while Fundie psychos in the US gov are bankrolling it though. We may have some way to go before there's light at the end of the tunnel. I guess more kids have to die a while yet.

You realize that if they succeed in Israel, Britain (and most likely EU) and the US is next. You are not immune from the wrath of Ahmadine-Hitler.

This is what they do to a child that steals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGAdtOif_CI

This is what Islam does to an adulterer:
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/medi...eo_100kbps.wmv
http://www.stoning-themovie.com/

Do you even wonder what they will do to those that live an alternative lifestyle?
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/27132.html

Here are the Hezbullah cells that will probably try to enforce the laws of Islam in your area:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDwfonyMadU

This is why you cannot believe anything that comes out of Iran or Hesbullah or Hamas...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8IBVFg-Z0Y

Nothing is too low.

I was explaining why I was wrong, that isn't allowed anymore? It is taking longer than I predicted for Israel to win because they have to remove mines as they go.


He should side with Israel, because they are wiping out a rival government that is trying to take over his country.

You were saying that your conditions for their victory weren't fulfilled (something like... they didn't really attack...) - you weren't explaining why you were wrong. And it's taking longer because when it comes to military operations, they're not as good as people seem to think. They're good at bombing civilians though. That much is clear.



He didn't ask them to. He didn't want them to. The "rival government" is part of the central government, and there were ongoing talks to integrate its militia into the army.

He can't side with people killing his soldiers while at the same time requesting that those same soldiers extend their authority all over the country.

You don't side with those destroying your country, killing your civilians, killing your soldiers (who are not even fighting), and just flat-out showing no regard for anything that you've accomplished after their previous, bloody occupation.

Yeah, right.

http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/20...llah_again.php

Hezbollah fighters in a neighborhood readying an AA gun.
http://www.news.com.au/common/imaged...5200790,00.jpg

Look at those uniforms, aren't they very casual, as uniforms go?

Well this something about our policy in the middle east in general. It's a dangerous game.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14110834/

The article clearly says that Hezbollah was taking part in the negotiations. Usually in negotiations, you start by refusing something, or demanding the maximum, to then be able to reach a compromise solution.

Your linked article proves this.


Because I'm sure that from 10,000 ft., the Israeli F16s can properly tell whether someone's wearing a uniform or not.

They are bombing sites that they know are of civilian nature. And they're killing people - including disabled kids hiding in basements. You think a bunch of leaflets can make this go away?

Once Hezbollah sets up a rocket launching site, it is no longer a civilian site.

OK, let's turn this around. The "Israel must do what is necessary" line of thought has been casually conflated with the "America must do what is necessary" line of thought, which is to say the "We must not be squeamish about a few civilian deaths if we are to prevail in the war on terror, since after all the terrorists certainly aren't" line of thought.

The trouble with all of that is that it proceeds from the merely belligerent "You don't expect us (or the Israelis) to just sit there while they attack us, do you? We (they) have to strike back and show them that there is a terrible cost to pay for their aggression".

The trouble being that nothing in that formulation has anything to do with answering the question "What is the most effective way of reducing the threat of terrorism?"

The idea that invasions and bombings and destruction of infrastructure and ground troops and the whole mighty machine of state warfare "reduces terror" appears to me to be manifestly false.

I dunno, am I missing something? Is there an instance where a dispersed, non-state entity willing to use terror tactics has been "defeated" by force of arms? What would that even mean? That all the "terrorists" are dead? And that there were no more recruits because the population that had been creating such people was so shocked and amazed at the power of the anti-terror forces that they decided that such a course was no longer prudent?

So it seems to me that the choices are not between, on the one hand, a vigorous, manly, non-squeamish willingness to wade in and crack some heads, and on the other a weak, appeasing, willingness to take punishment without response, but rather among options that are more or less likely to reduce the instance of terror attacks.

In that light, can someone explain to me how what Israel has been doing is going to reduce Hizbollah terror attacks? Does anyone imagine that by striking at Beirut they will "kill all the terrorists"? That Hizbollah will wither? That whatever missiles and weapons that might be destroyed will not almost immediately be replaced? That the people of Lebanon themselves will be terrorized into refusing aid and succor to "terrorists"?

Buffer zones and international forces, fine. That addresses the proximate problem of missile strikes. But the half mad rantings of the Bush admin and some of the Israeli leadership-- that by becoming ever more aggressive, by ever widening the theater of conflict we will somehow "win" the WOT (which the Lebanon conflict is now apparently a fully integrated part) is absurd and counterproductive on the face of it. Really, beyond the satisfaction of "ass kicking", how can anybody take this seriously as a strategy?

Good post Adda.

The biggest issue here is the public's demand that something aggressive be done now.
Democracy can be a wretch sometimes. Politicians feel pushed to act in a particular way, even if the course of action might be suspect.

I remember people on this board (even those on the left) who praised Bush for standing on Ground Zero and boasting that those responsible would face military action soon.

If Bush had responded in a real Christian manner and asked America to forgive those that had perpetrated the act and move on for the sake of peace, he would have been impeached (if not lynched) on the spot.

With Hesbollah rockets raining down on random Israeli citizens, the public mood isn't likely to be calling for a peace conference.

This is not a non-state entity, they own half of Lebanon, and have the backing of Syria and Iran. This is a proxy war between the US and Iran, not a war on stateless terrorists.

Hezbollah was building up arms, and slowly conquering Lebanon. This war was inevitable, and now is better than a later war against a even better armed and more powerful Hezbollah.

They no longer needed to exist after Israel exited, but continued to build up arms and political power. The "Shebba Farms" buisness was a bullshit excuse. If they did not intend to destroy Israel eventually, they would have blended into the general Lebanese government and military by now.

You obviously are assuming that terrorists are motivated simply by Israel's encroachment. I would contend that the terrorists are motivated by Israel's very existence.


I will contend that the choice is between punishing bad behavior or rewarding it, Risk v. Reward is what motivates everyone.


Less terrorists equals less terrorists to perpetrate terrorism. In addition, you reduce the reward while increasing risk for terrorists. Saying you are willing to die for your cause is one thing. Dying for it is another.

Israel is attacking the launchers of the rockets, less equipment for the terrorists mean less rockets equals less terrorism.

The fanatics will do anything to advance their cause as I demonstrated in earlier posts. Any half-wit can figure that out. Tell me this... Why do you care what fanatics think?

The reporting on this is simply despicable. It is being treated like a "Lebanese 9/11". "Terror by Israel" and "Israel kills innocents"... crap I say. 9/11 was without direct warning. This was preceded by declaration of war and repeated warnings by Israel. Anyone sticking around as Hezbollah pulled in a truck into a parking lot and firing half a dozen or more rockets into Israel is, I'm sorry to inform you, too stupid to live, or forced to stay. I know you will say that is insensitive, but let's face it, the other explosions might give one an indication that something isn't kosher in Lebanon. Humans have an inbred instinct to flee, let alone mothers protecting children, as is the claim - that all these woman and children just happened to be there. You really have to ignore common sense to conclude it is Israel at fault here.

Why would the all-caring and concerned, religion of peace followers of Hezbollah put civilians and presumably loved ones at risk, by firing rockets from anywhere near a civilian dwelling. Please explain how that is preventing creating new terrorists and more killing?


Unfortunately, if the world followed your advice, we may already be forcibly praying to Mecca. You see, the fanatics and extremists we are battling with think that "kicking ass" is a great idea. They are currently in the process of taking over the world. And reasoning like yours is widespread and crippling many a country's "national will" to defeat these barbarians.

If you think I am just exaggerating, I challenge you to name a region of the world where there is NO radical Islam problem. The reason why some call this WWIII is that radical Islam is attacking it's enemies globally.

I'm afraid your logic will only encourage more widespread killing at the hands of radical Islamo-Fascists who are suffering no palpable ill-effects from their actions.

Call me crazy.

Well, then, they should be fighting Hizbollah and Hizbollah exclusively. Power plants, universities, ambulances... this is not Hizbollah. Mentally disabled kids hiding in basements - this is not Hizbollah. They are not hurting Hizbollah by damaging roads and airports - Hizbollah doesn't rely on them, they have long established secret supply routes that you can't spot with an F16.

They are only damaging civilians, people who don't even support Hizbollah. And those civilians are re-thinking their support of Hizbollah nowadays.. and guess what? They don't like Hizbollah, but they dislike Israel even more for turning their country into a pariah and messing up everything they built during the last 15 years. The collective punishment is not showing any results. Just look at the last 50 years and the successes or failures of Israel's collective punishment theory. It's a miserable failure.

Instead of sending ground troops to fight the Hizbollah and incurr some damages, they want to wage war from 10,000 ft. And when they're killing innocent people, they saw it was a "mistake" and not "intentional". Does it even fucking matter aymore? Your entire strategy is wrong - you have been left with nothing else but the bombing of mentally challenged kids yet you still claim that it's always somebody's elses fault?

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt indeed.

Hizbollah is integrated into Lebanese society, sure. But they are "dispersed" in the sense that the armed wing does not maintain fixed facilities or a standing army.

But again, the real question is how you deal with them. If they "own" half of Lebanon, is it then necessary to destroy half of Lebanon to be sure of "defeating" them? Do we just decide that the Lebanese are "guilty" for harboring the enemies of Israel and toss them into the "terrorist" bag so we don't have to worry about civilians? And does anyone think that to do so would increase Israel's security?

We keep going from describing what or who Israel's enemies are and the nature of their tactics straight to "must lay surrounding environs to waste", as if the tactic of terrorism simply left the aggrieved party no choice but to inflict wide-spread destruction.

But I've never heard a convincing explanation for how that fixes the problem. I hear that to do otherwise is weak, that it encourages more terror, that "all a bully understands is a punch in the nose". But no clear statement as to how killing more and more people actually reduces the threat of terror attacks.

It all seems to be predicated on a vague notion that either massive retaliation kills enough of the people willing to use terror as a tactic that there aren't enough left to do any harm, or that if we and our proxies go completely ape-shit that the world will stop misbehaving out of fear of reprisal.

And, again, both scenarios trade on completely baseless assumptions about how how and why terror networks (not to mention populist uprisings, insurgencies, retaliatory militias, and sectarian violence, all of which are apparently now to be thrown in bulging "terror" bag) actually form and grow.

The biggest causality of branding all criticism of military adventurism as a response to terror as peace-nik bullshit is simple pragmatism. The players don't seem to even care if blowing things up makes them safer, they just by-God want some revenge.