Lebanon on fire.
| By TKeck - Jul 18th, 2006 at 1:37 pm EDT |
At least 226 people have been killed in Lebanon and 25 in Israel. The World Health Organization estimates 900,000 Lebanese to be displaced from their homes. Calls for a cease-fire have been met with resistance from Israel and the United States, steadfastly supporting Israel's sovereign right to defend itself. While Israel has the right and responsibility to defend itself, the bombardment and subsequent invasion of Lebanon constitutes a form of collective punishment against a vulnerable civilian population, not self-defense. Targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure (i.e. Power plants and Beirut International Airport) violate the fourth Geneva convention. Of course it goes without saying that Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israeli civilian homes is also criminal.
The responsible course of action is the proposed cease-fire brokered by international peacekeepers. Unless looking for a wider regional war, Israel should relinquish its demand for an immediate disarmament of Hezbollah. Israeli government officials know disarmament is unlikely given Hezbollah's strong domestic support in Southern Lebanon for its role in getting Israeli Defensive Forces out of Lebanon six years ago.
The future must involve an end to the unilateral policies of the Israeli government and of course an end to the brutal occupation of the Palestinians. As Israel calls for Lebanon's compliance with the UNSC's demand for the disarmament of Hezbollah, Israel should be looking to fullfil its own obligations to UNSC resolution 242 and 338.
The responsible course of action is the proposed cease-fire brokered by international peacekeepers. Unless looking for a wider regional war, Israel should relinquish its demand for an immediate disarmament of Hezbollah. Israeli government officials know disarmament is unlikely given Hezbollah's strong domestic support in Southern Lebanon for its role in getting Israeli Defensive Forces out of Lebanon six years ago.
The future must involve an end to the unilateral policies of the Israeli government and of course an end to the brutal occupation of the Palestinians. As Israel calls for Lebanon's compliance with the UNSC's demand for the disarmament of Hezbollah, Israel should be looking to fullfil its own obligations to UNSC resolution 242 and 338.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
I like how the phrase "collective punishment" is tossed around with little understanding of its legal meaning.
Israel is targetting Hezbollah. If Hezbollah uses Lebanese as human shields... that's awful and despicable, but that alone can't simply tie Israel's hands. Israel has to wield a big stick in order to get any leverage with its neighbors; and let us not forget, Hezbollah, like Hamas, was democratically elected. Those Hezbollah stronghold areas that voted them into office are in some ways accountable for their actions.
Beirut International Airport is dual-use civilian/military infrastructure, and thus a legitimate target. Civilians are not being targetted; Hezbollah is being targetted, and they often headquarter themselves in civilian areas. The unfortunate and tragic deaths of Lebanese civilians are truly at the hands of Hezbollah, not at the hands of Israel.
Which will get our soldiers back... how?
It's in the paper this morning - they have relinquished that demand. As usual, Israel plays comparatively nice.
Agreed, minus the adjectives - but before that can happen, there has to be a real end to the attacks on Israel. Israel is the region's model state; at the end of the day, it's what we want every single nation in the region to look like, in terms of how they treat their own people. The oasis of freedom that Israel represents in the middle east is a precious commodity, and responding to any threats to that freedom should be our top priority.
First, I used the word "collective punishment" because that is the nature of airstrikes by Israeli warplanes. Instead of entering into negotiations for the Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hamas after weekings of Israeli shellings that killed several Palestinians on a Gaza beach, the Israeli government arrogantly chose violence against a civilian population. (check news report around the first week of June for coverage of Gaza citizens killed by Israeli shells).
Super D says
By saying that the civilians in Hezbollah strongholds are responsible for any violence perpetrated by this faction, Super D seems to support the argument that civilians are responsible for the violence perpetrated by their government if that government is democratic. This is a very EXTREME positiion, that I nor anyone on the left should support. This is the very same logic employed by Osama Bin Laden and other extremist terrorist organizations. This is a pandora's box that should not be opened.
For the victims of Israeli bombs, its just semantics to say that civilians aren't being targeted. When you invade another country (which is what has happened), the indirect result is the death of countless civilians. Frankly, I find it absolutely AMAZING that the Super D says
Really? This is a play on words, to shift the blame away the Olmert govenment.
Finally, I will address Super D's statement that Israel is a model state in the region. He and many supporters of the current Israeli government are correct in pointing out the many freedoms Israeli's have. Unfortunately, the Palestinian population is not permitted these same rights. Super D may respond by saying that is the fault of the Palestinian authority, which would be a cheap trick, considering the status of the Palestinian territories is not by any means sovereign from the control of Israel.
Like many in the west, Super D has contextualized the issue as one of Israel's sovereign right to self-defense. If this was true, then wouldn't Lebanon by the same token have the sovereign right to defend itself from Israel's invasion? Given Israel's past record (i.e. need I remind you of Jenin or Sabra-Shatila in which an Israeli government commission found Sharon personally responsible for the deaths of up to 3,000 civilians) why should Israel have an unfettered, unchecked monopoly on violence?
The reality is that the current crisis has only made it clearer to Lebanon and the Arab world that in fact, Arab lives are cheap. Israel will be allowed a monopoly on violence by the west "to defend itself." Surely, this is likely to create more hatred and perhaps more violence towards Israel and the west.
Of course, in the end I believe Israel, Hezbollah and the Hamas government to be responsible for this crisis. But a far greater moral blame should be layed firmly on the doorstep of the Olmert government.
Under any reasonable reading of international law, airstrikes against targets with some military use that then end up negatively impacting civilians as well is not collective punishment - just as we were not guilty of collective punishment for taking out much of Iraq's infrastructure in the 2003 invasion.
Responsibility is not black and white - do they bear some responsibility? Yes, they do. If you'd like to explain how they bear none, then please be my guest.
The differences are gigantic - Israel is not intentionally targetting civilians, whereas Osama Bin Laden intentionally targets civilians. Civilians bearing some responsibility for the government they elect doesn't make attacking a civilian target the same as attacking a military target with some collateral damage.
Also, let's not forget the fact that Osama is wrong on the merits: America's policy that he reacted to, such as stationing troops in Saudi Arabia prior to 9/11 and supporting Israel, is not flawed and not in need of revision.
It's a war - collateral damage happens, as it did to Nazi Germany in WW2. (The comparison of organizations such as Hezbollah to the Nazis, I feel, is a particularly apt one.)
That's foreign policy - foreign policy is not nearly as important to judging a state's worth as its domestic policy. Even if Israel's foreign policy were absolutely terrible (It's not - it's a shade of grey and they've made some major missteps over the years, but it's not terrible), they'd still deserve our support for the good they do for their own people.
Changing foreign policy is easy - you get some international brokering going on, conditions change, new people get elected, and boom! the policy changes.
Changing a nation's domestic relationship with its own citizens is much more difficult - exponentially moreso than righting a nation's foreign policy wrongs.
Any nation that does not treat its citizens as we treat ours (or as Israel treats theirs) is far less worthy of our consideration as to what is "just" and "unjust" in our dealings with them - liberal democratic regimes are a rarity to be defended at all costs, while autocrats are a dime a dozen.
Wrong - I don't believe in a "right to self defense" because I don't believe in rights in general (Nor human rights). I believe in systems, plain and simple - systems which regulate action. There's no system in place to stop Israel from doing what they've done; talking about a 'right to self defense' is pointless and utterly irrelevant.
They've come a long way since Jenin - and as stated earlier, they should have a monopoly on violence due to the form of government they practice domestically.
If the Palestinians want similar consideration, they should take action internally to craft a regime similar to Israel's.
Arab lives are not cheap - the lives of those in autocratic societies are (speaking frankly) cheap in the impersonal terms by which one generally doesn't like to think, but by which international relations must be handled.
The Arabs are just lagging behind on liberalizing their regimes and subordinating religion to secular materialism.
We do our part - we export our sex-obsessed, glorious culture everywhere we can, and religion just can't compete with that. What they do with what we give them is, well, up to them.