Printer's Devil on 30/7/2006 at 19:51
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
More of the same.
Wouldn't it be more constructive to organize some sort of fundraiser for Lebanese refugees? Or join the Red Cross as a volunteer? I'm serious. Clever cynicism and vituperation holds very little value to people trapped in a warzone.
Paz on 30/7/2006 at 19:52
Stepping gently around the fantasists for a second ...
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I don't have much stomach for this kind of thing but
I just can't see any way around it.
I'm presupposing, based on this (amongst other things), that ultimately Israel believes its actions will make things "better" for their state. By that, we must assume they feel this campaign will lead to either a cessation of hostilities from Hezbollah or, at least, a reduction. That's the only reasoning I can see behind it: "this is horrific, but eventually it will make things better".
(There is also, arguably, another factor to this whereby Olmert feels he has to issue a strong military response 'lest he appear weak regarding the conditions laid out in conjunction with the Gaza withdrawal - however, this further complicates matters)
Regarding the potential for this action to reduce attacks on Israeli soil: is this in any way likely?
Some members of Hezbollah will (or have) no doubt be slain in the fighting. There is, I would estimate, no chance whatsoever of destroying the organisation completely. Even if we generously suggest that these latest actions are not encouraging anyone else to sign up, there will always be enough angry young men left to launch rockets. Maybe not from Southern Lebanon, but such is the flexibility of an organisation which is not necessarily tied to any single state. AT BEST (from Israel's point of view), they will kill a number of Hezbollah members. Is that fair to say?
Perhaps, they will feel, this is enough to disrupt the organisation for a while and lower the aggression levels for a spell. It will not halt funding or the acquisition of arms from whatever sources (allegedly Iran/Syria et al).
Is that a result worth pursuing, when the additional consequences are considerable loss of innocent life (albeit, still less than is being lost in Iraq every single week, stat-fans), destabilising the Lebanese economy and god knows what else in regard to destabilising the region as a whole?
Even if we are to accept that retaliation was the only option (politically, for Olmert, it probably was - however this does not necessarily tally with it being a wise option), there are certain degrees of retaliation and there are differing methods of retaliation which could (perhaps) have focused on more achievable goals; goals which would not have had such dreadful consequences.
Essentially - I am absolutely convinced that these actions will fail to reduce hostility towards Israel. Indeed, they will most likely result in it increasing. Hezbollah have played out some classic baiting tactics and they've been swallowed whole. I can only see one group who will benefit from this.
{edit} Just adding something else - slightly over a year ago a democratic uprising booted Syrian forces out of Lebanon, removed the pro-Syrian government and attempted to improve Western relations. The region is now witnessing very clearly the level of international support which can be expected when a country sticks its neck out to get closer to our ideals. {/edit}
SD on 30/7/2006 at 20:13
Quote Posted by Paz
Some members of Hezbollah will (or have) no doubt be slain in the fighting. There is, I would estimate, no chance whatsoever of destroying the organisation completely. Even if we generously suggest that these latest actions are not encouraging anyone else to sign up, there will always be enough angry young men left to launch rockets. Maybe not from Southern Lebanon, but such is the flexibility of an organisation which is not necessarily tied to any single state. AT BEST (from Israel's point of view), they will kill a number of Hezbollah members. Is that fair to say?
I think you're spot on. Some people with very short memories are forgetting that in
TWENTY YEARS of occupation in southern Lebanon, Israel barely weakened Hezbollah.
So given that this conflict will, at most, linger on for a few months, it's an absolute given that Hezbollah will be pretty much intact when the fighting is over.
Once you have established that the destruction of Hezbollah is not a realistic aim, one must try and work out what the
actual purpose of Israel's military action is.
Rather frighteningly, it appears to be nothing more than a massive show of strength; a reminder that however low Iran or Syria or A.N.Other hostile state might be prepared to go, Israel will trump them every time, and they'll do it with bigger guns. I'm reminded of Keyser Söze in
The Usual Suspects, who murdered his own wife and children simply to show other crime bosses that he was not a man to be trifled with.
Quote:
Is that a result worth pursuing?
Well that depends wholely on whether or not you believe Israel has a right to purchase insurance using the blood of innocent Lebanese children as currency.
Printer's Devil on 31/7/2006 at 00:16
The destruction of Israel is not a realistic aim, either, but that hasn't stopped virtually every terror/resistance group in the region from making it central to their existence. So where does that leave everybody?
SD on 31/7/2006 at 00:23
Well, apart from the fact that most of those parties now accept Israel's basic right to exist, I do believe that we should be setting the benchmark against which a democratic, pluralistic government's policies are measured at a level considerably higher than those of the terrorist groups that oppose it.
Paz on 31/7/2006 at 01:20
Some comparatively good news amidst a sea of bad - Israel have halted air strikes for 48 hours. Good start.
Quote Posted by Printer's Devil
The destruction of Israel is not a realistic aim, either, but that hasn't stopped virtually every terror/resistance group in the region from making it central to their existence. So where does that leave everybody?
I am not au fait with the current ideology with every anti-Israeli group currently in operation and I suspect neither are you. However, assuming the basic accuracy of that statement, I'm not sure how it contradicts the thrust of my argument. You are quite correct, the terrorist groups are not aiding any kind of peaceful resolution either; but as they are terrorist groups this should not, perhaps, come as a surprise. It doesn't matter to them if a developing economy gets screwed up - in fact, it's probably quite helpful. They're probably not too bothered if the region destabilises.
The inevitable conclusion is that if you are a terrorist organisation, you hold a great many cards. It's hard to come under any further condemnation than you already do - and if you somehow manage to do so, so what? The above issues concerning stability do not concern you. There is no motivation for you to maintain any kind of truce. And so on and so forth. The advantages are many, except, crucially, a terrorist organisation holds no moral ground whatsoever. The one card they do not hold is the ability to kill people "legitimately" under the banner of warfare. Only nation states can do that.
In contrast, Israel DOES have to worry about those factors - if it does not, it risks creating even greater problems. That seems a bit unfair and shitty, doesn't it? WELL YES, IT ABSOLUTELY IS. Such are the responsibilities of being a stable nation rather than a collection of politically-motivated nutters. I agree it seems highly counter-intuitive to suggest that by fighting Hezbollah they're actually making things a lot worse, but it's more to do with the methology currently in use than the principle behind it.
Anyway, let's hope this temporary ceasefire ultimately extends for ... oooh, let's say three decades.
Printer's Devil on 31/7/2006 at 03:48
Quote Posted by Paz
I am not au fait with the current ideology with every anti-Israeli group currently in operation and I suspect neither are you.
This is true. I should have stipulated that many of the
extreme anti-Israeli groups (which tend to be the focus of the media) take that stance. There are likely quite a few who just want the bombs and bulldozers to stop so they can live their lives, which can be tricky enough.
paloalto on 31/7/2006 at 11:59
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Well, apart from the fact that most of those parties now accept Israel's basic right to exist, I do believe that we should be setting the benchmark against which a democratic, pluralistic government's policies are measured at a level considerably higher than those of the terrorist groups that oppose it.
A blatant lie.
SubJeff on 31/7/2006 at 13:03
Even if most of them do, the ones that are causing a problem are all that matters.
Paz, I would totally agree with you except that Hizbullah is not an organisation that is just backed by it's "everyman" followers. The Syrian and Iranian government surely have a hand their actions and are a helping hand for arming and funding them. That this fact is largely overlooked by many people, ESPECIALLY those in the Arab world who are so vehement in thier condemnation of Israeli military operations, just amazes me.
Swiss Mercenary on 31/7/2006 at 13:15
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
The Syrian and Iranian government surely have a hand their actions and are a helping hand for arming and funding them.
Those guys can't even get their story straight. They both deny their involvement, by claiming they merely provide moral support, while Hezbollah's out claiming that 'its no big secret that we're getting munitions from Iran'. :idea:
