xenogere

9 Responses to “Why are Israeli concerns the only valid concerns?”

1. 

   Richard McConchie
   

   Jul 29, 2006

   Principal objective of Israeli Government: to preserve the state of Israel and protect the lives of its citizens.

   Principal objective of Hamas and Hezbollah: to destroy the state of Israel and kill its citizens.

   What room for compromise?

   Reply to this comment
2. 

   jason
   

   Jul 30, 2006

   The compromise is in the Palestinian situation, something Israel has failed to address since their own terrorism subjugated the Palestinians and kicked the British out of the area. It’s a bit of oversimplification to assume Israel is acting responsibly when in fact they are not. How long will they drag the Palestinians through the lip service they’ve given them thus far? When will they really address the Palestinian issue?

   Hezb’Allah is an organization of Israel’s own making, a group that sprang up during the 15 years Israel occupied Lebanon. Like al-Qaida is America’s own doing, Hezb’Allah is Israel’s own doing. The promise of resolution lies within addressing the problems that gave rise to the organization — and that brings us back to the Palestinian issue. If Israel would seriously act to address that ongoing dilemma, it would be a significant first step to resolving much of the Arab hatred. It won’t fix everything, and it won’t fix anything overnight, but it would demonstrate that Israel doesn’t just think Arabs are around for target practice and to be treated like animals.

   And if Israel is a sovereign state who should be allowed to defend itself by whatever means it deems necessary, even when such responses are horrifically disproportionate and wrongfully target civilians and civilian infrastructure, why don’t we ask the British and Palestinians what retribution they’d like to exact on Israel for the King David Hotel massacre (to name only one of the many Israeli terrorist attacks against those two peoples as part of the Zionist efforts to form the state of Israel).

   At this point, Israel’s actions bear an uncanny resemblance to those of both Hamas and Hezb’Allah, and they appear to be having the opposite effect than what was intended. If anyone were listening to the Lebanese civilians right now, they’d realize the incursion and destruction are only strengthening Hezb’Allah by encouraging more people to join them.

   Quid pro quo in these circumstances accomplishes nothing. Look at the less than stellar results America has gotten from that approach in both Afghanistan and Iraq…

   Reply to this comment
3. 

   Richard McConchie
   

   Jul 31, 2006

   Thank you Jason.

   I think that we can agree that a negotiated settlement adressing the long-term needs of both Israelis and Palestinians is the only alternative to years of the same.

   However, by whom can such a settlement be negotiated? Hamas and Hezbollah (not to mention Iran) are not interested in a negotiated settlement. They are determined to destroy Israel, not reach agreements with it, and have said so loudly, clearly and often. Should they achieve this aim, the lives of Israelis would not be spared, and the scale and brutality of that genocide would shock even hardened anti-Israel activists. Scratch that; we’ll drown in the crocodile tears.

   Perhaps you would argue that the oft-repeated calls for the annihalation of Israel and the death of Jews are just a negotiating position, and that H and HB can be part of a peaceful solution. But Jewish people have learned that when someone tells you that they want to kill you, it is well to consider that they might just be serious.

   Reply to this comment
4. 

   jason
   

   Aug 01, 2006

   You make a very reasonable argument, Richard, and I agree that Hamas and Hezb’Allah are not the best negotiating partners. Like al-Qaida, I doubt there’s much hope of having a peaceful agreement with them. In addition, I also feel prudence dictates it a wise approach to try to dismember the organizations along with their infrastructures.

   With all of that said, however, retaliation against those terrorist groups by way of mass civilian casualties is no better than the terrorist acts this is intended to stop and/or prevent. Therein lies my major concern in this case. I want Israel to defend itself and to live in peace with its neighbors. Likewise, I want the same for the Arab nations in the Middle East. My point of contention is only that Israel’s military action must be tempered with humanity and respect for the rules of war. Thus far, in this endeavor, they have inflicted upwards of a 90% civilian casualty rate to the tune of hundreds of lives. That is hardly a just statistic, and it has only served to empower the nation’s enemies and strengthen the terrorist groups they are fighting. I see it as entirely counterproductive, and that is likely my biggest hang-up.

   Perhaps you would argue that the oft-repeated calls for the annihalation of Israel and the death of Jews are just a negotiating position, and that H and HB can be part of a peaceful solution.

   That would not be my position. It’s hard for me to imagine that the calls for Israel’s annihilation are anything other than pure hate. Sure, there is always a very remote chance that they’re being used to push Israel back to the negotiating table (as in a poker bluff), but I doubt that’s true. Yet, only Israel is capable of allowing the terrorist groups to set the agenda, and that appears to be what’s happening. Military action should be part of the plan — not all of it as is the present and ongoing case. I believe a strategic move should be made to deal with the Palestinian issue while the tactical move of fighting Hezb’Allah et al. continues. There is no reason why they can not be concurrent actions in the overall enterprise of protecting Israel and addressing Arab concerns.

   Ultimately, it still boils down to what I perceive to be an excessive use of force against civilians, something we call a terrorist act when someone else perpetrates it. I hope Israel realizes sooner rather than later that such action only further empowers its enemies.

   Reply to this comment
5. 

   Richard McConchie
   

   Aug 02, 2006

   Thanks Jason, it’s nice to have a reasonable discussion in these times of heightened emotions.

   I agree that civilian casualties are always to be avoided if possible, but I accept that war is ugly anf innocent will suffer. It has always been so. I believe (and perhaps I am naive) that the Israeli military does not DELIBERATELY target civilians, and I know that Hamas and Hezbollah DO. Unless I am wrong in this, I think the accusation of Israeli terrorism cannot stand.

   I am not a military man, nor do I know the terrain of battle, so I am not in a position to second-guess the people who are running this war on the ground. It may be that there is a psychological element to this – “if you mess with us you’ll feel the pain”. Certainly it is important to Israel not only that it be strong, but that it APPEAR strong to its enemies, of which there are multitudes. To embolden them can lead only to catastrophe.

   Last points. Would the Allies have ever won WW2 if CNN and BBC had been reporting live TV from the cities and towns of Germany and Japan?

   And I ask you to reflect on this post from Sandmonkey: http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/08/01/som... ions/

   Is the squeamishness of the West being used as a weapon against us?

   Reply to this comment
6. 

   jason
   

   Aug 04, 2006

   The reason I said — and still say — Israel’s actions are tantamount to terrorism is simple: terrorism is the infliction of war, especially on civilians, for political reasons. Israel didn’t start out doing that, of course, but instead began its campaign as an act of self-defense. I support that. It became terrorism by definition when (1) it was abundantly clear their response had absolutely nothing to do with the two kidnapped soldiers, (2) they proclaimed they would not stop until Hezb’Allah was toppled, yet Hezb’Allah as an organization is an active member of the fledgling, democratic Lebanese government despite their terrorist roots, and (3) Israel failed to modify or even reduce its actions despite mounting and unarguable evidence that it was disproportionately impacting Lebanese civilians to the tune of 90% (as opposed to about 10% Hezb’Allah deaths). They created a humanitarian crisis and refused to reevaluate their approach in response. Instead, they continued using tactics they knew were killing far more civilians than is considered mere collateral damage. It is a dictionary example of terrorism. Again, it didn’t start out that way, but that’s where they are now.

   Sadly, they have had the opposite effect from what was intended. They have strengthened and empowered Hezb’Allah. They have turned the entire Arab world against them and America, even those who initially were at least reasonable enough to understand the premise of self-defense and who were moderate nations with good Western relationships. They have alienated the entire world save America. They have caused all of America’s allies to turn their backs on the superpower. They have jeopardized the new government in Lebanon and pushed the country toward Islamic revolution and rule. They have strengthened the positions of both Syria and Iran. They have helped squelch political reform in Iran. The list goes on. Again, this has been entirely counterproductive.

   That’s a very good question about WWII. While the level of news coverage we have today would definitely have affected plans and maneuvers, and possibly even the outcome, hindsight and projection are probably not very useful in this context. Unlike WWII, a war in which sides were clearly drawn and held according to national borders, the Israel/Hezb’Allah issue is completely different. Despite their actions to the contrary, Israel’s disagreement is not with the state of Lebanon, although I find it increasingly difficult to even say that given the travesty of it all.

   Ultimately, Richard, it’s a question of morality. We will never win the war against terrorism or radical religious elements (within Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and quite a few others) if we stoop to their level and fight them on their terms. You see, winning the hearts and minds of their supporters is what will ultimately degrade their base and relegate them to inconsequence. What Israel has done is quite the opposite. By the callous infliction of tremendous death, pain, devastation, and suffering on the civilian population and infrastructure of Lebanon, they have inadvertently confirmed the point of the terrorists: that Israelis hate Arabs, that they will visit destruction upon even the innocents, that the Western world hates Arabs and will allow Israel to visit horrors upon them, and that Israelis are ungodly and worthy of death. We forever claimed the terrorists were wrong in saying such things; this conflict proved them right, although unintentionally.

   The West always claimed that democracy, freedom, liberty, civility, morality, and humanity were its greatest strengths, and that these traits are so inherently enticing that even the hardest of hearts will succumb to them eventually, and that that would include terrorists and their supporters. That position has now been greatly weakened; likewise, the terrorists’ position has been greatly strengthened. I still fail to see how Israel was right. Because this is not hindsight (I’ve been proclaiming the need for them to step it down a bit since the conflict began), I’m left wondering why cooler heads did not prevail.

   As for that article, it doesn’t apply for a simple reason. The question it raises is only valid so long as we are willing to use terrorism to fight terrorism. It is never valid reasoning to do something because someone else would do it to us. Let’s use WWII again: What horror would have grown from the end of the war had the Allies decided that Italy, Germany and Japan all deserved precisely what they had given? Think of the death and destruction we could have visited upon their populations: gas chambers, concentration camps, torture, starvation, mutilation, and a great many other actions that are simply unacceptable. No, it is never right to do a thing simply because our enemy would do the same thing given the chance. That makes us the enemy and completely deconstructs the moral high ground upon which we should be standing.

   Think of it is this way. The same reasoning makes it acceptable for us to use nuclear weapons against Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Chechnya, and a great many others. After all, they would use them against us if they could. No, that’s a bad idea, and the moment we begin thinking like that, we become terrorists ourselves. Remember, just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily follow that we must do that thing — or that we should. We can never win the hearts and minds of radical elements so long as we are willing to use the same tactics they would use against us. It proves their point of view that we are indeed animals and full of hate and ready to kill at a moment’s notice.

   Reply to this comment
7. 

   Richard McConchie
   

   Aug 05, 2006

   Thank you for your very helpful post; your points are well-considered, and I do not wish to take up too much of your time. I don’t feel that we are too far apart on most matters that have been raised.

   Your definition of terrorism (“the infliction of war, especially on civilians, for political reasons”) would differ from mine, but I don’t think that this is too much of a difficulty. I think that we can agree that there are continua of violence, covering intensity, intent and targeting, legal and moral authority and other aspects and that there will never be a satisfactory consensus on what forms of violence are justified in different circumstances.

   I note that under your definition, all war is terrorism, and always has been – in classical and pre-classical times, a population defeated in war would typically be in part murdered and in part enslaved. If a distinction is to be drawn in this case, it should not be between terrorism and legitimate warfare, but on the intent of the combatants.

   Israel’s intent is to remove the threat of Hezbollah. Hezbollah’s stated intent is to destroy Israel, though its attacks on Jews have not been restricted to Israelis.

   What would Israel’s motives be in intentionally making the number of civilian casualties higher than militarily necessary? Israelis are painfully aware that they are losing the war on the battleground of world opinion, which battle is fought not with bombs and bullets but with television footage of blood and destruction and carnage, and with the words of diplomats and editorialists and, slightly, bloggers.

   Well, one reason might be to cow its enemies. This may be a message that to attack Israel is to attract a massive, painful, devestating response. If so, then a political judgment has been made (and it rings true to me) that the Moslem enemies will not be fended off by lesser methods, by ‘proportionality’, by land for peace swaps, by unilateral withdrawals, or by politics. For I judge that Israel is not detested for its real and imagined political sins, but for its profane presence on ‘Muslim lands’. Modern leftists tend to be secular of mind and steeped in politics, and perhaps psychologically unwilling to consider that some grievances cannot be resolved politically, being the product of ancient and irrational hatreds. In short, if Israel’s enemies cannot come to accept a permanent political accommodation, then perhaps Israel’s security can only be guaranteed through an overwhelming military dominance, and the willingness to use it. Perhaps the public and diplomatic opprobrium is seen as unavoidable in the face of a threat to the very existence of Israel and the lives of all its citizens. For if Israel loses its military superiority, its existence is ended in the time it takes a tank to drive from Damascus, or a missile to fly from Tehran. And then what of its people? Will the Arab armies and militias, expel the Jews (to where?) in an orderly manner? or will there simply be a second Holocaust, another six million slaughtered in a spasm of Jihadi bloodlust?

   That’s one theory anyway. Perhaps, instead, it is simply the opinion of Israel’s military men that the current level of violence is necessary and unavoidable; that it is not possible to reliably distinguish between Hezbollah and the civilian population that they use as camouflage and shield; that transport and infrastructure must be denied to Hezbollah if they are not simply to melt away, armed and dangerous, to reform in one year or three more powerful and threatening than ever.

   You say Israel’s actions have strengthened Hezbollah. Perhaps this is true, in the long run, if Hezbollah can survive crushing defeat (if Israel is permitted to achieve this); in the short term they are defanging a snake.

   You say Israel’s actions have “turned the whole Arab world against them”. When was the Arab world ever for them? What peace they have was won in battle, and through bribery. Can you see its peaceful neighbours lending a hand to Israel in a time of need? What Arab people would not erupt in joy at the news of Israel’s annihalation? what dancing there would be in the Arab street? how many sweets would be passed out, how many Kalashnikovs emptied skyward in celebration? And how hungrily then would Palestine’s neighbours then devour their old lands? How many, in their
   hearts and openly, despise Israel – no, not Israel the prosperous democracy, but Jews – Jews! – who defied the words of the Prophet, Jews! who will be betrayed by the very stones of prophecy, Jews! who defile the Ummah, who were expelled from Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, Yemen, Libya, Jordan, but have refused to be expelled from the land beyond the Jordan River.

   Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people have died in Lebanon, and in Gaza, and in Israel this past month. We will never know how many of those people carried arms against Israel and how many did not.Every death is a horror, every wound and every burn is an outrage. How many have been shot in Sri Lanka, starved in Sudan, blown apart in Thailand
   aand the Philippines, tortured in Egypt? How would we know, when all eyes are again on the Middle East, and every camera and every finger points in righteous condemnation at the lesser Satan and the Great Satan?

   But you are right. It is the responsibility of the people of the West to take the high moral road, to care for those who would kill us and to show by example that our ways are better, and that we have the prescription for peace and prosperity and progress. I therefore join you in condemning Israel for its new slaughter of the innocents. But I reserve the right to condemn every other bastard as well.

   Reply to this comment
8. 

   jason
   

   Aug 08, 2006

   I don’t necessarily think my definition of terrorism covers all war, but I’ll also admit I was a bit overbroad. I should have specified it’s generally unconventional, can be asymmetrical, and normally targets non-combatants. I may have rushed that last response into place without checking I’d been clear enough. But, even under my original definition, not all war would be terrorism. For instance, taking action to stop a despotic régime from committing genocide or ethnic cleansing would not be considered terrorism, and neither would self-defense. However, I was in error by not being more thorough in my original response, so I apologize for that. I’m not normally that empty headed…

   I think you’re very much correct insomuch that Israel is detested by Arab states and peoples for its mere presence in the midst of the Middle East. That complicates matters for developing and sustaining a lasting peace. In some cases, it may not even be possible except via the threat of force (whether from Israel or others). That will take generations to remove. The primary catalyst for dissolving the most obvious hatred is to deal with the Palestinian issue. So much of the engendered anger stems from that. By removing it, I think it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain the level of anti-Israel hate that exists now. It won’t solve the problem overnight, and I wouldn’t be so daft as to suggest such a thing, but it would certainly go a long way toward smoothing the relationships and overall situation.

   I’m not at all convinced that even if Israel was allowed unrestrained leeway in its offensive, it could devastate Hezb’Allah. In fact, given the disproportionate civilian deaths as compared to Hezb’Allah deaths, I’d say they would be forced to destroy most of the Lebanese population in order to gain any semblance of victory. Thus far, and in an unrestrained environment, Hezb’Allah has increased its attacks, strengthened them, increased their range into Israel, and all as the IDF claims to be routing out the terrorist group. I think the facts contradict that premise in this case. Large numbers of non-combatants are being killed while very few of the true enemy have even been found, let alone stopped, and all the death and destruction has done nothing to tame the daily attacks on Israeli cities. That does nothing to convince anyone this offensive is successful — at all. Three weeks of war have proven that the approach is flawed, in my opinion, and certainly has shown it is at best counterproductive. I would fully support their efforts if they were demonstrating a level of success that greatly minimized the civilian and collateral damage while simultaneously diminishing Hezb’Allah’s ability to attack the state, yet that is absolutely not happening. While they’re displacing, killing, or wounding a great many Lebanese people, Hezb’Allah is undeterred and continues its onslaught on an increasing scale. It’s difficult for me to see through that and say the ends might justify the means. When innocent people die en masse, the ends become irrelevant.

   When I say the Arab world has turned against Israel, I mean those states with which Israel has some level of diplomatic interaction (Egypt and Jordan, for instance). These states have been forced to vehemently denounce Israel, and therefore the United States, in response to the humanitarian disaster in Lebanon, a cataclysmic example of overzealous response. And, while I certainly doubt any of those states would rush to Israel’s side in a time of need (at least not yet), this has further alienated them by making them choose between innocent Arab blood or Israeli self-defense. For them, and I would hope for all reasonable and humane people, it’s simple to determine which side of the argument to take. That’s especially true for Arabs.

   And, ultimately, I again point out that I’m not anti-Israel. I’m just not supportive of demonstrating the lesser morality, a move that only strengthens those we see as savages and threats. No, Israel won’t win the hearts and minds of the Arab people overnight and neither will America, but this particular conflict certainly helps in no way whatsoever.

   In the same breath, I equally condemn the terrorists, and Hezb’Allah is near the top of that list. This is why Israel is the greater target: they are a civilized nation, a Westernized nation, and such peoples are expected to flex their muscle while equally engaging their hearts and minds. We know the Arab world generally won’t listen to such logic and reason; we would hope Israel would.

   By the way, that last paragraph tickled me so. I laughed heartily at “I reserve the right to condemn every other bastard as well.” You’ll get absolutely no argument from me on that, and I share the sentiment with you.

   Reply to this comment
9. 

   Richard McConchie
   

   Aug 09, 2006

   Thanks Jason. I’d like to keep this one short, and would also like to apologise for the perhaps over-flowery tone of my last comment.

   Points of dispute are definitely becoming fewer. One matter, and you will probably concede the point is that under your original (and admittedly flawed) definition of terrorism – ”the infliction of war, especially on civilians, for political reasons”- even “action to stop a despotic régime from committing genocide or ethnic cleansing” would still be terrorism were civilians to be killed, wounded or inconvenienced. Also, I wonder why you insisted that the action of terrorism needed to be for political reasons. Surely it can also be for non-political reasons – religious or racial hatred especially. In fact, this is the main reason why the modern form of Islamic terrorism is so threatening. Political motives admit of a political solution – there can be deals, compromises, concessions. But how can one deal with irrational – non-political – actors other than by destroying them?

   In this context, I am unconvinced that the Palestinian issue is as fundamental an issue as you believe to be the case – the land now called Palestine has never been independent. In the absence of Israel, I suspect that the land would be carved up by other Arab states. Do you have any suggestions as to how the Palestinian issue could be ‘dealt with’ or ‘removed’? Would Hamas accept a two-state solution? – they say not, and I believe them. A one-state solution and the “right of return” would doom the Jews as surely as military conquest. In short, I do not believe a political solution is possible because the fundamental conflict is not political. If Israel withdrew to 1967 borders tomorrow, the attacks would continue; with more intensity than ever. When Hamas speaks of ‘occupied territory’, they are not referring just to the West Bank.

   My last point concerns the nature of the current phase of the conflict. If we considered this as a dispute with Hezbollah, a rag-tag bunch of a few thousand fanatics about a border skirmish and kidnapping, I would agree that Israel could afford to be more restrained. But this ignores the actors behind the scenes – particularly Iran – in creating, training, arming and directing Hezbollah. I’m sure that you agree Hezbollah is no rag-tag militia but a formidable and well-trained force with sophisticated weapons. If we consider Hezbollah to be an arm of Iranian power, the threat to Israel becomes serious indeed – existential. Should Israel refrain from action until Hezbollah is given – and given permission to use – chemical weapons from Syria or nukes from Iran? If I were an Israeli, I would not wish to see these possibilities become actual. As I said in an earlier comment, when someone tells you that they want to kill you, it is well to consider that they might just be serious. And neither of us can judge how Hezbollah might be neutralized with minimum impact on Lebanon and the Lebanese. I may be naive, but I do trust that the Israeli military is not killing children for fun. They are trying to save 6.3 million lives.

   Reply to this comment