To read the average American newspaper, much less lefty blogs or French government pronouncements (link corrected), you would think Israel is indiscriminately attacking Lebanon's civilian infrastructure. Ze'ev Schiff of Ha'aretz (a well-respected military analyst with excellent sources) has the facts, as of this morning Israel time:
"The Israel Air Force focused its attacks in Lebanon on Thursday against long-range Iranian Fajr 3 and 4 missiles, and succeeded in hitting some that were hidden in camouflaged bunkers. The missiles have a range that can reach Haifa and possibly Hadera.... The most significant strategic target attacked thus far has been the Beirut airport. While the strikes against runways have shut down operations, none of the radar or control towers were hit. This allows the airport to continue to control international flights over its airspace [not to mention that it leaves the basic airport infrastructure intact--ed]. Similarly, the main ports have not been hit, and with the exception of Hezbollah's broadcasting station, no other targets in Beirut were attacked. The air force has concentrated its attacks against Hezbollah's military installations. The main Shi'ite neighborhoods in the capital, the power plant, and transformers also have not been targeted.."
I'm inclined to believe him, because it sounds like a more intelligent strategy, but there is no way I can know for sure.
Can you please point to who is saying Israel is indiscriminately attacking Lebanon's civilian infrastructure
this?
I don't trust people either. But I do believe that one can at least have a good idea of some truths a priori.
I don't think Israel is indiscriminately targetting civilians or civilian infrastructure, and I'm certainly interested in hearing more facts and more information, but this post is an incredible insult to your readers' intelligence.
Disclaimer: I haven't been following this story as closely as I'd like; it just might be that Bernstein has read a number of leftist French MSM blogs that imply that Israel is attacking civilians, and that I too would have seen them if I'd been paying closer attention.
It doesn't sound like they would have anything good to say about the discriminate killing of civilians, either.
I don't pretend to understand the passion for finding some extreme mischaracterization and then refuting it.
seriously though, what does one expect from a bunch of jew haters? the truth? they seriously do not want to discuss the truth. they'd then have to explain how killing people in a pizza parlor is fine, but how attacking a leader's home and office (who has repeatedly called for the annihilation of israel and the massacre of its citizens) is a war crime.
but i'm just an evil zionist neocon cog in the israel lobby out to get the truth tellers!
Anderson, you are vary naive if you think "antiwar.com" is "anti war", as such.
I also did a google search on "indiscriminate murdering of Lebanese civilians" and got zero hits. But it's possible that the quote is too recent and not on google yet. Do you happen to know who authored the article or where you first read about it?
• Hezbollah leader ready for "open war" with Israel
• Israeli jets destroy Hezbollah headquarters in Beirut
• Hezbollah fires missiles into six Israeli towns
• An Israeli naval ship damaged by what appeared to be a rocket
• Israeli woman, grandson reported killed by a rocket
That doesn't seem to paint the same picture you are describing. If anything the mention of the Israeli woman and grandson is notable for emphasizing the few Israeli civilian deaths.
Thursday, July 13th, 2006 in News by Brandon Snider|
The Israeli attack on Lebanese civilians (55 dead so far today) continues.
How exactly are the newspapers giving this impression without saying it? I'm not trying to be snarky, David; I'm honestly curious.
"The Israeli attack on Lebanese civilians (55 dead so far today) continues. Chomsky goes into a brief history of Israeli aggression against Lebanon in this article. Chomsky writes:
From the early 1970s, Lebanon was drawn into the conflict as a result of cross-border PLO terror and far more destructive Israeli attacks on Lebanon, sometimes retaliatory, often not. Thus in February 1973, Israeli forces attacked north of Beirut, killing many civilians, in a raid justified as preemptive. In December 1975, Israeli bombing killed over 50 Lebanese in an attack Israel described as “preventive, not punitive”; it appears to have been a reaction to the UN Security Council meeting debating the diplomatic settlement that Israel opposed and Washington vetoed. There are many other examples.
The indiscriminate murdering of Lebanese civilians is also recognized as being futile, even by the Israeli government, despite their public statements placing blame for Hezbollah on Beirut, as documented in this Stratfor piece:"
It seems to me that a fair reading is that this about the historical killing of Lebanese civilians in that quote. And it the quote seems to say Israel recognizes that indiscriminate killing is futile (which if anything implies that is not what they are doing now).
The more helpful quote for your position seems to be later in the same article:
"It is therefore Syria that is blamed, when Israeli aggression results in murder and destruction of property." This quote is being slightly sarcastic in saying this is Bush's argument (not the argument of the author), but it does seem to refer to Israeli actions as "murder." However, I think this is not nearly as bad as your initial quote (which I don't think is bad when looked in context).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/
Oh, they are being "discriminate" but "nothing is safe." Ok, neocon fools. My Israel, right or wrong.
I fear we are going to be drawn into a highly unstable war with no winners, and many losers (innocent civilians), and will wind up with no government in Lebanon at all.
Israel showed a lot of restraint for a long time, and this was after they pulled out of Gaza, and so I think garnered some goodwill along with clarifying cause and effect in the misnamed "cycle of violence".
Huh? I always thought the basic purpose of an airport was to provide a place for planes to take off and land, and thus would have considered the runway to be pretty basic infrastructure.
Which US newspapers and French government pronouncements were you thinking of? Or am I demanding a literal explanation of a little light humor?
Ron Mexico is a pretty sweet pseudonym, btw.
Umm... except... France isn't mentioned in that article.
A couple UN officials are-- is that what you meant? And the EC is also mentioned.
Are you arguing that it's bad for the UN to try to improve "electricity and water supplies in the Gaza Strip, where food and medical supplies are running short and disease rates are climbing" per the article? Why is this so? It is not clear to me why even those of us who support Israel should be cheering for disease among Palestinians.
Things should then be escalated from there if necessary using tactical nukes on Iran, Syria, and North Korea simultaneously.
Its going to have to happen sooner or later, might as well be sooner.
Says the "Dog"
The pictures, however, do seem to show a lot of stuff getting blown up unrelated to missile launchers.
I guess we'll find out soon enough what Israel is really doing. Seems pretty cloudy by most accounts at the moment.
This brings up an interesting question: Are there any international flights still going over Lebanese airspace?
Now I get it. That Ha'aretz article is a terrific rebuttal of Chirac's fanciful hyperbole.
OK, that makes sense.
I'd caution against using "humor" in the future if all it does is confuse the living hell out of every single commentor (except maybe JunkDog, who thinks Chirac didn't go far enough) on a post for the first 2 hours.
And how would you recommend attacking Hezbollah in such a way that innocent civilians are not impacted in any way? Or, if they can be impacted, where do you draw the line? It seems that Israel's dropping leaflets and giving warnings to get away from Hezbollah centers is pretty much all that can be done. Because Hezbollah uses the same infrastructure as many of these unconnected civilians, the civilians will be impacted.
ed:
If you want to render an airport unusable you can destroy the runways. Or you can destroy the runways, terminals, and level the entire place. The first can be defined as leaving basic infrastructure in place (insofar as it is only damaged to prevent its use). Runways can be repaired quickly. Try building a new terminal and you'll be at it a while.
Nonsense.
I listened to NPR this a.m. and read the NY Times (lefty enought for ya?) and had the distinct impression that Israel was targeting infrastructure (airport runways - with specific reference to two helicoptors apparently serving as spotters to time the runway bombings to avoid planes taking off) and HQ's or offices of Hezbollah.
Christopher Cooke,
With the disclaimer that I don't know the Israeli battle plan, and can only make educated guesses. There are plausible reasons, which one may or may not agree with...
Hezbollah is strong in the Bekka Valley, and destroying their military capability requires going beyond their forward positions in South Lebanon. And its political headquarters are in Beirut, not South Lebanon...
News reports (I forget where) say that Israel is trying to prevent the 2 kidnapped soldiers from being spirited out of Lebanon to Iran...
Hezbollah is a member of the governing coalition of Lebanon, and the Lebanese government has made no effort to restrain them. The Lebanese government bears some responsibility for Hezbollah actions, and Israel is trying to make that point by attacking infrastructure targets...
Immobilizing the airports, the seaports, and the highways from Lebanon prevent reinforcement of supplies and personnel, allowing the anticipated Israeli land attack to be carried out more swiftly and with fewer casualties...
Other reports say there are significant numbers of Iranian troops, and Israel claims that they are in charge of the rockets. Israel can't invade until the reserves are called up, but it may be that they are planning to go after the Iranian Revolutionary Guard contingents, which are not along the border...
These explanations come to my mind, anyway.
After studying in London and getting a fuller picture of the mideast sitaution, I began to seriously consider the strategic benefits of the American alliance with Israel. I certainly am no expert, but I fail to see what the US is getting out of this relationship except terrorists using our relationship with Israel as a primary reason for attacking US interests. Not to mention the lunatics running Iran. I guess we could encourage Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities for US, but it not like anyone will believe the US was not invovled in some way.
With permanent US bases in Iraq, we can protect our oil interests. Short of having an Israeli state for the Rapture countdown crowd, could somone enlighten me on the strategic benefits?
From Reuters:
http://tinyurl.com/f2hpu
"Condemnation of Israeli action mounts
.....
... PARIS (Reuters) - Israeli strikes against civilian targets in Lebanon and Gaza, from power stations to bridges,...
...
"One can ask oneself whether there isn't a sort of desire to destroy Lebanon," French President Jacques Chirac said of Israeli attacks that have killed 66 people, almost all civilians.
...
Egeland called Israeli targeting of civilian infrastructure a violation of international law and of common sense.
Anyway, I can definitely see Israel going after all of Hezbollah's facilities, military bases and training camps in the Bekka Valley, and even the tactical, targeted bombing of its headquarters in Beirut (as Israel has done). I still think blockading the ports and bombing the only international airport are steps I would not have taken, because of the impact on the rest of Lebanon, particularly its economy and civilian population, which have only recently started to recover from many years' privations and civil war. Until last week, by the way, tourism was Lebanon's first or second largest industry, and, yes, it is my understanding that the Beirut airport was open with flights in and out until all of this began.
As for Hezbollah being "part of the Lebanese government" that is true but they are a minority group that doesn't control the Lebanese government's policies. Like Hamas, Hezbollah has won some popular support because it is perceived as non-corrupt and because of its charitable activities and the social services it provides in the portions of Lebanon it controls. It enjoys most of its support among the poor, predominantly Shiite population in Southern Lebanon and in the Beirut slums.
The problem with the Lebanese government is not with its policies but, as Professor Bernstein noted in his other posting, that it is too weak to take on Hezbollah, which is why Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon, and has a large militia. I suppose the best case scenario here is that Israel weakens Hezbollah sufficiently that the Lebanese government is able to assert control over all of Lebanon. The worst case scenario is a war between Israel, Iran and Syria, with oil prices going through the roof in the US and Europe, thousands of civilians killed and a whole new generation of Islamic terrorists created among the Arab and Islamic world. Both are real possibilities, but I prefer to remain hopeful.
I think this shows us that Reagan was wrong not to retaliate in a big way against Hezbollah and Iran for their roles in killing 242 marines at the Beirut airport in the early 1980s, or for their attack on the US Embassy in Beirut.
As for the comparative silence in the rest of the Arab world about Israel's actions, the Arab governments are no fans of Iran, and know that Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, are Israel's main target. Remember, much of the Arab world supported Saddam against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war
War is not a good thing, but it is sometimes necessary. We must understand that good will suffer loss, but victory is essential for the survival of the civilized world. Lebanon’s democratic government must be allowed to flourish, and Hezbollah must be laid low. It seems that the Palestinians and Hezbollah always manage to snatch war from the jaws of peace.
Please? Israel has massive military force at its disposal. It probably isn't even using more than 10% of its maximum ability right now. If Israel really wanted to kill Lebanese civilians they'd be piling up by the thousands by now.
In the sapn of a few hours in Tokyo, the US killed over 100,000 Japanese civivilians. In Wurzburg and Nuremberg Germany, they did the same. That's ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND. Not 20.
Times like these are really great to see the true jew haters come out of the woodwork. They, along with the hundreds of millions of muslims and arabs throughout the world are hoping that Sheikh Nasrallah and Pres. Ahmadinejad can succeed where the Fuehrer failed.
You make this statement confidently, but have you ever repaired a runway in a day? What is your background in construction? Frankly I don't think you know much about runways. A runway at a major international airport may look like a big sidewalk, but it's actually a pretty complex and expensive bit of pavement, which must absorb heavy loads, have a carefully constructed surface for traction and channeling water, etc. No way could you repair major bomb damage to it in a day with basic road construction equipment. Maybe you could patch it, and perhaps make it suitable for use by certain military aircraft, but no airline (or, more specifically, no airline insurer) in its right mind would land passenger jets there.
There's no doubt that the Lebanese would be much worse off if the Israelis bombed the rest of the airport. And bombing the runway makes sense to me. But it's hardly the trivial damage you suggest.
The US Army used more ordnance on Fallujah than Israel has in the past decade.
The US Air Force has dropped more bombs in Iraq since 2003 than the Israeli Air Force has in 58 years of existence.
The levels of "disproportionate force" used by the two countries aren't even close.
Christopher Cooke,
The Bekaa Valley is in the north, north of the Beirut-Damascus highway, and inland west of the Lebanon Mountains.
One can always find fault with strategy and tactics. Presumably, the Isreli Defense Forces are acting according to a contingency plan designed to execute a strategic objective with minimal loss of Israeli life. We can only guess at the strategic objective— armies are not in the practice of publishing these. I imagine they are trying to destroy the military capability of Hezbollah, divide it from the rest of the Lebanese polity, and make it difficult for any military force but the IDF from operating in Southern Lebanon. At least those would be the objectives of this armchair general.
Christopher Cooke,
The Bekaa Valley is in the north, north of the Beirut-Damascus highway, and inland west of the Lebanon Mountains.
One can always find fault with strategy and tactics. Presumably, the Isreli Defense Forces are acting according to a contingency plan designed to execute a strategic objective with minimal loss of Israeli life. We can only guess at the strategic objective— armies are not in the practice of publishing these. I imagine they are trying to destroy the military capability of Hezbollah, divide it from the rest of the Lebanese polity, and make it difficult for any military force but the IDF from operating in Southern Lebanon. At least those would be the objectives of this armchair general.
To be sure, repairing a military field so that fighters can use it might be different from repairing a civilian field so that international passenger aircraft can use it.
Just to put it in perspective, in one night's worth of bombing in Tokyo, the US Air Force killed more civilians than Israel has in 58 years of existence. The same can be said of Wurzburg, Nuremberg and other German cities.
To put it in perspective, this is not World War II, and any comparison of Israel's current situation with World War II is to say the least ridiculous.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but why the f*ck would we do that?
I agree that just saying "x number of civilians died today" doesn't tell the full story, especially when we're looking at a decades-long conflict.
But the US actions, right or wrong, in WWII that resulted in the largest number of civilian fatalities, are not the gold standard by which all civilian deaths must be judged.
The land war in Europe in the war between the Allies &Germany, and the war in the Pacific b/w the Allies and Japan, are vastly different cirumstances than the Israel vs Palestine, Hizbolla, et al conflict today.
Because the circumstances are so different, invoking the civilians killed by the US &UK is WWII is merely a rhetorical device intended to minimize the importance of civilian deaths.
Plus, by your logic, the US only lost about 3000 civilians on 9/11, so people shouldn't've gotten their panties all in a knot about it. I certainly hope that wasn't your reaction.
A point that I made in my original post, of course. In fact it is quite different. You could probably land an A-10 or an F-18 or a Mig on nails and glass and land mines, for crying out loud, but just try to go from (a) a bombed out runway -- bombed by people who know what they're doing -- to (b) a runway that Lloyds of London will let an MD-11 full of people land on, all in "one day with basic construction equipment." No way, no how. Total and complete malarkey.
I love how people just post this kind of thing. I don't know everything there is to know about runways, but at least I land airplanes at major airports once in a while.
Nope. Military aircraft are extremely susceptible to foreign object damage. One nail goes into an engine, and bye-bye F-18 or MiG. That's why they frequently check military runways for debris.
The Navy often checks for foreign objects on carrier decks.
The circumstances certainly ARE different. In WW2, Germany and Japan were thousand of miles away and had no realistic option of hurting the US homeland or civilians in any manner. They weren't openly committed to the death of every American in an eternal fire.
By contrast, Hezbollah and Hams are ON THE BORDER with Israel. It's the equivalent of AQ being in Hamilton, Ontario or Tijuana instead of 7000 miles away in Iraq.
Defeat by the US in WW2 would not result in the end of the US or the annihilation of the populace. By contrast, defeat by Israel will result in exactly that. Hezbollah and Hams are the heirs of Hitler and Himmler. If they can, they will kill every Jew there. The stakes are MUCH higher for Israel than they ever were for the US in WW2. If worse came to worse we could worked out a deal with them like we had with the Russians for 50 years.
My point was to expose the utter hypocrisy of those criticizing Israel for excessive force, when excessive force is how wars are won, as has been shown throughout history.
What those people really want is to see Israel defeated. To see Hassan Nasrallah and Khlaed Mashaal erect a second Auschwitz and finish the work that Hitler couldn't.
You may be one of those who would approve of such a result, but it won't happen. If Israel has to kill every Lebanese, Palestinian and Syrian man , woman and child to ensure their survival and prevent a second holocaust they will.
And I for one, will be fully supportive.
Just like I would have been fully supportive if the US had to kill every German man, woman and child to defeat the Nazis.
Do the Germans have a right to resist the annexation and occupation and dispossession of more than 15 MILLION of them that happened after WW2?
If German terrorists started blowing up buses in Warsaw in an attempt to end the "occupation" of the Danzig corridor and reclaim East Prussia for its rightful owners, would you support them? Would the UN? What if they did the same in Prague or Paris in relation to the Saar region or the Sudetenland? What about all the German refugees? Do they have a right of return to Poland, France and the Czech Republic? If the Germans started blowing up, shooting and kidnapping French and Poles to achieve this, would the UN support them? Would you?
What should the response be if the Germans were to do that?
Oh dear Lord. I know about FOD. My comment was actually meant to be sarcastic.
Thankfully you did not cite evidence that aircraft cannot land on land mines.
But I suppose I deserved that for shifting from runways to debris. Of course we weren't really talking about debris. I just couldn't believe that someone would point to the patching of a runway for military use as evidence that you could repair a bombed runway to air carrier standards in "one day with basic construction equipment."
Meanwhile, I'll give you the F-18, but I still think you could land an A-10 on pointy sticks topped with poison if you really had to. I also suspect their engines could ingest and spew out a frozen side of beef, or the top half of the Empire State Building, or 342 concrete garden gnomes, if necessary.
I'm sorry, but I am not one of those people who can honstly believe all the public proaganda statements of even my own "side" - and yes, I absolutely support Israels right to exist and to respond to these provocations, and I also understand why they might feel like 'taking the gloves off'.
Propaganda, including "lying", is part of this war and our side plays it too. Get over it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/
Oh, they are being "discriminate" but "nothing is safe." Ok, neocon fools. My Israel, right or wrong."
Mark F, Israel is a country of Jewish people surrounded by millions of Muslims who would LOVE to just squash them into the ground (and have tried before). Unless Israel keeps them off balance and scared, aka telling them 'nothing is safe', they’re not going to just rush in and destroy Israel for fear of Israel using their rumored nuclear warheads.
So really, you can’t listen to what they say in press releases because its all just propaganda, you need to look at their actions. And if you do, you’ll see they in fact have been "discriminate".
What these monkeys and their butt heads blood thirsty murdering accomplice on this forum are advocating - is simply - to murder as many unarmed and innocent Lebanese as they can while trying to justify these loss of life as unavoidable.
i don't hate the Jewish people - but why does the World have to focus so much effort in the area of 6 million people while we have over 5 billion of us ?? If their land is so special - why don't someone just nuke them and see how special it would get??
This planet is going to hell and we still have to keep our attention on these monkeys ??
Maybe next time, pick a homeland with a clear title surrounded by people that you credibly think you can live with as neighbors?
If a country is so special and above fitting into a regional framework anywhere peacefully, maybe purchasing an island state where there are no neighbors is an option? Or else continue the religion/culture as it appears to be practiced best -- as a troop of nomads across the globe committed to no solid piece of land? There is success in this too, and at this time, it may be easier to keep hold of the traditions yet survive securely.