| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration will allow you to join in the discussion which is amazingly free of personal rancor and trolls! We are currently looking for posters from both the left and the right who have a demonstrated capacity to discuss fervently without letting personalities get in the way. Is that you? We need more staff. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Israel losing all sympathy! | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 2 2006, 04:23 PM (729 Views) | |
| Post #1 Aug 2 2006, 04:23 PM | Knight_Of_The_St_Georges_Cross |
|
we all know the Jewish people and Isrealis have suffered throughout history but the latest conflict with Hezbollah has shown Israel to cement itself as a paranoid, quick to act, violent country. Lets remember this is over 2 soldiers who are alive and being kept prisoner by the militant group in Lebanon. Once again its the innocent civilians who are paying the price of war and what is this war even for? Latest developments today from BBC
as you can tell from this article the conflict is escalating with no solution at all on the horizon the middle East is the powder keg of the world at the moment, with irag, Afghanistan the current developments between israel and Lebanon as well as the paranoia surrounding Iran. |
Newbie
  ![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Aug 3 2006, 10:01 AM | Son N Law |
|
I've been hard on Israel in the past, and will continue to be hard on them in the future, but in this case, I really feel for them. In retrospect, I really feel that the creation of Israel was a mistake. A big mistake. That said, since its inception, Israel has been able to defend its existence through strength and strength alone. I do think they've gone too far in the past in exerting their strength, but it's a tough call to make. Any sign of weakness would be (is) disastrous, so Israel has overcompensated. It's easy to say that "it's only two soldiers," but had Israel allowed those two soldiers to be captured with no retribution, I really feel that all would have been lost -- the Arab nations aligned against Israel would have exploited that show of weakness to its fullest extent, I feel, and the suffering of innocent Israelis would have potentially been incalculable. The question can certainly be raised: Did Israel go too far? That's a tough call to make. Innocent Lebanese civilians are dying, and that's horrible. Are Israelis dilberately targetting innocent civilians? I honestly don't know. I hope not, but then again, the number of Israeli expats who have attested to the fact that they, while in the Israeli army, intentionally targetted Palestinian civilians is staggering. The problem, though, is that the enemy they face is often indistinguishable from the civilian populous. The other side of that coin, though, is that every time they kill a truly innocent civilian, they create five more legitimate enemies. If Israel had managed to go into Lebanon and wipe out Hizb'Allah and only Hizb'Allah, I think the innocent civilians of Lebanon would have, by and large, been okay with that. But every time Israel kills an innocent -- intentionally or not; it really doesn't matter -- they create new members of Hizb'Allah on the spot. Every day that goes by without Hizb'Allah being wiped off the face of the earth, their ranks grow stronger and more emboldened. And I'm not quite sure I would call the mood surrounding Iran "paranoia." You're not paranoid if they're really out to get you. I think this ill-begotten war in Iraq has led to the mistaken perception that we -- and Israel -- are "paranoid" about Iran. Had we not invaded Iraq -- who posed no threat to us or anyone outside their borders -- and lost face entirely in the Islamic Arab community, I feel that we might have been in a position to deal with Iran effectively. But now we're left with the perception that we can't achieve or militaristic goals effectively, we don't understand the politics of the area, and that any action on our part only makes the situation worse for us (and you're free to argue all day long whether or not that perception reflects reality; it doesn't make a whit of difference, because for the vast majority of humanity, perception determines their reality). As for how this relates to the situation in Israel: in the eyes of many Arabs, I feel, the two are indelibly intertwined. A suffering America equates to a suffering Israel for them, I think. Or, at the very least, a suffering America means less support for Israel, hence a weakened Israel. And they see America as suffering right now in our war in Iraq. Again, it doesn't matter if that's actually true (although I do think it's true) -- it only matters that people see it to be true. In this case, they took a gamble based on those odds and won. You can't look at the number of people who have died on each side of the conflict to tally the score. I heard a commentator the other day say, "Anything less than 100% victory for Israel equates to defeat." I believe that, too. Even if Hizb'Allah loses 500 people in a day, and Israel only loses one, Israel has lost that day, because from my personal experience Israelis, on the whole, cherish and value life. Their enemies -- again, on the whole -- don't, or at least don't seem to. I feel for the innocent people on both sides of this conflict. I really do. But if forced to choose sides, I choose Israel in this case. Israel may not be the good guys, but Hizb'Allah are definitely the bad guys. One could easily point to this and say it represents an endless cycle of bloodshed, but in this round Hizb'Allah and their backers threw the first punch. They instigated the conflict, even if you want to argue that Israel's reaction was disproportionate. I personally feel that Israel either has to obliterate the threats against them, while diminishing the collateral damage to a bare minimum (if that's possible), or its citizens need to start looking for new places to call home. At the same time, they need to stop bullying the Palestinian people (not the government; the people -- the goverment needs to be bullied). But that's an entirely different conflict, as I see it. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Aug 3 2006, 01:14 PM |
|
|
Saying that the current push into southern Lebanon is over two soldiers is like saying that WWI was over the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. There is a world of difference between a trigger and a cause. Hizbollah has been launching attacks and missiles into Israel for years while Lebanon allowed them to do this unchecked. The last incursion into Israel was the proverbial straw. Hizbollah is a terrorist organization that hides among civilians and has a stated goal of the destruction of Israel and the killing and expulsion of all Jews in the Middle East. While I regret the fact that innocent civilians in Lebanon are dying, we need to bear two things in mind. (1) Israel is going to great lengths to protect civilians, going so far as to drop leaflets, tipping their military hand before a strike, in order to give civilians a chance to escape, and (2) Hizbollah hides among civilians, putting them in danger when Israel targets the enemy who has the stated goal of destroying her. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #4 Aug 3 2006, 02:43 PM | Son N Law |
Excellent point. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #5 Aug 3 2006, 03:58 PM | Knight_Of_The_St_Georges_Cross |
actually its not assassintaion of the Archduke in Sarajevo triggered a series of events hostilities between other countries. Austria Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia. Serbia had strong ties with Russia so they got involved in the dispute. A-H declared war on Serbia, Russia bound by a treaty with Serbia mobilised its army and declared war on A-H. Germany allied with Austria-Hungary saw Russias mobilisation as an act of war and thus declared war on Russia so on and so on with the Israel issue it was 2 soldiers were captured then instant retaliation and missiles flying back and forth. |
Newbie
|
|
|
|
| Post #6 Aug 3 2006, 04:23 PM |
|
Actually it is. Just as the assassination was one event (in a long series) that turned out to be the trigger of the already inevitiable WWI, so was the latest incursion by Hizbollah into Israel, and the capturing, injuring, and killing of soldiers, just one event (in a long series) that turned out to be the trigger. You seem to be assuming that Hizbollah has not been conducting scads of other attacks on Israel over the years. They have. This latest attack by Hizbollah, combined with the fact that Syria and Iran have supplied this group (that has the stated goal of destroying Israel and either killing all the Jews there or driving them from the Middle East) with thousands of missiles, were the final straws. Israel had to neutralize this terrorist group somehow, either by destroying it as a terrorist militia or by driving it back far enough that most of its missiles are rendered harmless. This situation did not happen overnight. It has been hurtling towards this inevitable eventuality for years. Just like WWI. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #7 Aug 3 2006, 10:39 PM | Son N Law |
|
I'm not sure I would have called this string of events inevitable, but otherwise I'm siding with Eye on this one. This didn't happen overnight. Israeli soldiers have been kidnapped before, and the response has been surgical. Had anyone other than militant Islamic terrorists heck-bent on destroying Israel kidnapped those soldiers, I think their response would have been surgical in this case, too. Again, I don't think I'm ready to make a firm decision just yet as to whether or not Israel overreacted here, but given their history with this organization, they had no choice but to bring the hammer down, and bring it down hard. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #8 Aug 5 2006, 08:57 AM | Knight_Of_The_St_Georges_Cross |
this is gonna be one of those incidents where in the future we look back on it and say 'why? what was it all for?' ok all war is pointless but this is just as pointless as Vietnam I studied about Vietnam in History and its not dissimilar one was fighting to stop the spread of communism in asia the other is fighting a militant group who they have had long standing problems with |
Newbie
|
|
|
|
| Post #9 Aug 5 2006, 09:57 AM | Son N Law |
I have to disagree about this being Vietnam all over again. Our war with Iraq, perhaps. I wouldn't argue with that. But Israel's conflict with Hizb'Allah? No. In fact, I'm having trouble coming up with any homologous conflict. This isn't even related to the Israel/Palestine strife, if you ask me -- except, perhaps, in some tangential, philosophical way. The Middle East is a complex situation. I would be lying through my teeth if I said I understood it all completely. But as far as I understand it, the rest of the Middle East really doesn't give a rip about Palestine. Well, maybe Jordan and Egypt do. But Jordan and Egypt aren't related to this new quagmire. When the rest of the Middle East wails about Palestine, they're looking for an excuse to express their hatred for the very existance of Israel. The best description I've heard of this battle is that it's an existential one. I agree with that. I wish I had come up with it myself, in fact. Right now, Israel is fighting to remain on the map, plain and simple. (And there's your tangential, philosophical connection to the Palestine/Israel bloodshed on a personal, not governmental, level.) Look, I'm not going to defend every action Israel has made in this skirmish. They've done some things I don't agree with. They're starting to get a little out of control over the past few days. But that said, I don't envy them. They're still not the bad guys here. That doesn't make them the good guys, but they're not the bad guys. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #10 Aug 5 2006, 11:55 AM |
|
Paragraph by parapragh: 1st para: Years from now, this will be looked on as a global struggle against a radicial theological ideology that calls for the death of all religions, religious people, and states that do not completely support that radical theology. 2nd para: Not all war is pointless. That statement is overly simplistic. One might argue whether a particular war is one of defense, but one cannot seriously argue that wars of defense are, in toto, "pointless." Remaining para: To me, Viet Nam was not history to be studied. It was news through which I grew up. I developed from supporting it, to opposing it, to recognizing its necessity and seeing the mistakes in how it was prosecuted. Viet Nam and Israel's offensive against Hizbollah are, indeed, quite dissimilar in many ways. Here are just a few. 1. Viet Nam, individually, was not an aggressor on the United States. You might argue that Communism, of which Viet Nam was one manifestation, called for our destruction, but Viet Nam, as a lone entity, never threatened us directly. Hizbollah is directly commited to the destruction of Israel and the killing of all the Jews in the Middle East or at least their being driven out. Hiabollah in word and DEED is a threat to Israel's very existence--particularly if Iran develops nukes and starts supplying nuclear warheads along with the thousands of missiles that they are giving to Hizbollah. 2. North Viet Nam never attacked the US in its territories. Hizbollah, for years has been attacking Israel. Israel has been using very measured responses, while the attacks continued and Hizbollah accumulated thousands (10,000 by most estimates) of missiles--all earmarked for Israel. Viet Nam never posed such a direct threat to the US. 3. Hizbollah is only one of many terrorist organizations and Arab governments who each, individually, have a stated goal of destroying Israel in specific.--and have been in a real state of war with Israel for over fifty years. Communism may have been an ideology that called for the whole world to become communistic through revolution, but, apart from proxy wars (like Viet Nam), was not directly threatening the US with actual attacks and was not in an actual state of war with us. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #11 Aug 5 2006, 04:36 PM | Son N Law |
Again, this is way, way, way out of the realm of my specialty, and as for the political climate of the Middle East as a whole, I willingly admit my relative ignorace, but as I understand it, this is, quite possible, the most succinct and accurate summation of the current situation as I've ever seen attempted in fewer than 1000 words. The only point I would add is that they're neither too shiny nor happy when it comes to Christians and atheists, either. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #12 Aug 5 2006, 06:57 PM | Knight_Of_The_St_Georges_Cross |
ok well if you analyze every letter like that to try and make me look like an idiot then of course you make my post sound like I'm talking rubbish |
Newbie
|
|
|
|
| Post #13 Aug 5 2006, 07:24 PM |
|
| Sorry. I just took in your opinion and gave mine. Isn't that what civil discussion is about? |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #14 Aug 6 2006, 09:38 PM | Son N Law |
|
Yeah, don't take it too hard, Knight. This is the exact sort of response I want from someone when they A ) disagree with me and/or B ) have a different perspective than I do. Eye wasn't trying to knock you down; he was just trying to correct what he saw to be a misinformed viewpoint. I would much rather see someone pick my point apart one piece at a time and offer a rebuttal than simply say, "Nuh uh!" He's a smart man. He's got a great handle on modern history. You should listen to him. Except when he disagrees with me, that is. In those cases he's wrong, and you should listen to me. :P Unless, of course, the argument is about calculus, formulaic murder mysteries, or the art of curmudgeonliness, in which case he's the expert and you should disregard anything I say. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #15 Aug 7 2006, 09:39 AM |
|
| Nuh uh! |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #16 Aug 7 2006, 10:46 AM |
|
|
In my humble opinion there are two primary resaons what Israel has done (in general) is appropriate and what and who they are fighting against is not. 1) Innocent civilians can be hurt when a nation defends itself. The difference lies in if the intent is to protect onesself and innocent civilians are injured resultant to that or if innocents are the intended victims. 2) There is a difference in the underling goal of the violence in question: self preservation or genocide. Becuase others speak for Israel better than I do, quoting Rabbi Yoffie, leader of the American Reform Union, the distinguishing feature of the conflict is "the utter clarity of the issues and of the moral choices that it presents." "Could the rights and wrongs of this conflict be any clearer? If Israel’s cause is not just in this war, then no cause can ever be just." Yoffie took aim at those who accuse Israel of overreacting and of failing to exercise “proportionality.” "To my fellow Americans who speak in this way, here is my question: if you were living in Houston, and if a terrorist body that the Mexican government refused to disarm were firing deadly rockets into your neighborhood night after night, endangering your life and terrorizing your children, would you be talking of restraint and proportionality? Or would you be demanding an immediate response from your government to assure that not a single additional missile threatened your family’s well-being?" Yoffie said. "This is not an abstract question. We know what President Roosevelt did when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. We know what President Kennedy did when the Russians put missiles in Cuba. And we know what President Bush did in Afghanistan, when it gave refuge to those who attacked us on September 11.," he said. However, he added, "let us not think for a moment, God forbid, that we can be indifferent to the death of innocents. The death of any child, Israeli or Arab, Muslim or Jew, is an unspeakable tragedy that rends the heart." He said what distinguishes Israel is that immediately after the tragedy of Jana, Israel's government said it was an awful mistake, and the Israeli media were filled with anguished debates about the moral implications of Israel's actions. "Israelis want to know that everything that can be done to avoid civilian casualties is being done," he said. On a separate portion of this discussion, I'm with SNL - uh, huh... |
Civil Servant
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The War on Terror · Next Topic » |
3:22 PM Feb 6