Top of the article: The "hiding among civilians" myth "Israel claims it's justified in bombing civilians because Hezbollah mingles with them. In fact, the militant group doesn't trust its civilians and stays as far away from them as possible."
First two paragraphs of the article: "The bombs came just as night fell, around 7 p.m. The locals knew that the 10-story apartment building had been the office, and possibly the residence, of Sheik Tawouk, the Hezbollah commander for the south, so they had moved their families out at the start of the war. The landlord had refused to rent to Hezbollah when they requested the top floors of the building. No matter, the locals said, the Hezb guys just moved in anyway in the name of the 'resistance.' Everyone knew that the building would be hit eventually. Its location in downtown Tyre, which had yet to be hit by Israeli airstrikes, was not going to protect it forever. And 'everyone' apparently included Sheik Tawouk, because he wasn't anywhere near it when it was finally hit."
Is it just me, or does the first two paragraph of this articles directly contradict its thesis? Thesis: Hezbollah does not hide behind civilians. First paragraphs: A Hezbollah commander and other "Hezb guys" force themselves into the top floors of a ten-story apartment buiding, knowing that its likely to be targeted by Israel.
There is more, albeit somewhat less egregious, evidence, later in the article, that contradicts the thesis: "The almost nightly airstrikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut could be seen as making some sense, as the Israelis appear convinced there are command and control bunkers underneath the continually smoldering rubble. There were some civilian casualties the first few nights in places like Haret Hreik, but people quickly left the area to the Hezbollah fighters with their radios and motorbikes." If the civilians "left the area" to "Hezbollah fighters," doesn't that mean that "Hezbollah fighters" were in the area mixed with civilians before that?
Still later: "In three trips over the last week to the south, where I came near enough to the fighting to hear Israeli artillery, and not just airstrikes, I saw exactly no fighters. Guys with radios with the look of Hezbollah always found me." Umm, how exactly did they "find" the author if they weren't around to begin with? Maybe they, you know, HIDE (perhaps in plain sight in civilian clothes), until they make sure that the new visitors to town are really journalists, and not an Israeli secret service unit?
And: "A fellow journalist, a Lebanese who has covered them for two decades, knows only one military guy who will admit it, and he never talks or grants interviews. All he will say is, 'I'll be gone for a few months for training. I'll call when I'm back.' Presumably his friends and neighbors may suspect something, but no one says anything." Geez, maybe this is actually evidence that a "Hezbollah fighter" is living amongst the civilian population ("friends and neighbors").
The article makes two salient points: (1) Israel does not distinguish between the "political/humanitarian" wing of the Army of God, and its military wing, in selecting targets; and (2) that Party of God fighters are disciplined and discrete, and blend into the local population.
That's all well and good, and would make an interesting article. But instead, the author, Mitch Prothero, "debunks" the claims that Hezbollah hides among civilians, and instead provides evidence that it's true. Worse yet, Salon's editors play up a sensational angle in the headline ("The 'Hiding Among Civilians' Myth") that is actually contradicted by the text of the article. If I didn't suspect that either sympathy for the Party of God or hostility to Israel blinded the editors to the obvious, I'd be embarassed for them.
UPDATE: The obvious foolishness of this article hasn't stopped various bloggers from linking to it favorably.
UPDATE 2: On a related note, this is a pretty remarkable examination of how photos from Qana that have been sent around the world were staged (hat tip: Instapundit). This doesn't make the tragedy for the individuals involved any less, but it does suggest that photojournalists are tossing anything resembling journalistic ethics away to get a sensationalistic shot, and can reasonably be accused of serving as propaganda shills for the Party of God. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports on survivors in Qana. Here's all the Times has to say about whether the Party of God was using human shields in the town:
A grocer, Hassan Faraj, stood outside his shop, near a monument to those killed in the 1996 attack. He said that Hezbollah fighters had not come to Qana, but that residents supported them strongly. There was little evidence of fighters on Sunday, but Hezbollah flags and posters of Shiite leaders trimmed the streets. "They like the resistance here," he said.
Not exactly Woodward and Bernstein. Given that it's extremely pertinent whether Israel was attacking Party of God positions or, as Human Rights Watch (which is almost cartoonishly biased agaisnt Israel, as I noticed even before I read this op-ed) alleges today, was firing indiscriminatey, you would think the Times reporter would dig a bit deeper. At least the Times might mention Israel's claim that 150 missiles were fired at Israel from Qana, and IAF footage that purports to show rockets launched by the Party of God from Qana.
Related Posts (on one page):
Israel is trying its hardest to do the right thing and avoid targeting civilians. Fair enough, but sometimes I wonder if the problem is, that Israel is not targeting civilians enough. Sherman, was not nearly so kind as he marched through Atlanta, and quite frankly I have no problem with Israel, going into Lebanon, and basically eliminating the resistance. Have a problem with that? Hezbollah can surrender or not, that should be Olmert's terms. It's all it can be, Israel wants to fight this war without getting its hands dirty. Israel should give up on trying to appease the nations. It's never going to.
The world hates Israel, and for what it's worth, the world should "hate" Israel. Israel condemns the world, as it stand chosen of God, a nation that sought him after all other continued in their rebellion (see e.g. the story of Balaam). Israel of all the other nations of antiquity exists today, not because of the work of human hands, but of the work of God. If Israel wants to succeed in whatever it does, it must recognize this fact. The world has hated Israel, just as it hated Noah, because they stand righteous where the rest of the world stand condemned.
It seems more likely though that Israel will not turn the the Lord, and seek him, instead they will trust in Olmert to deliver them, and like every other secular government that has tried to "deliver" Israel, they will fail. Salvation comes from the Lord, not from Olmert and his government, Israel needs to return to the Lord and establish itself as the lamp upon Zion. Trust in the Lord, to establish your boundaries, not secular men, they promise peace, and deliver nothing. Only until Israel recognizes and sees the inability of the secular government to "deliver" Israel, will there be a true change in the hearts of the people of Israel.
David, you keep referring to Hezbolloh as "party of God," Israel itself means "One who strives with God" perhaps it is high time, that Israel get back to striving with the Lord, instead of ignoring Him. Then, Israel will have the courage and faith to mock those who oppose them, as David did standing before Goliath "You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted. "This day the Lord wil deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel."
Have the courage O Israel, to proudly proclaim "That all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel."
Look at the Judeo-Christian conception of G-d. In the Old Testament, G-d constantly invokes justice as the foundation of morality. In the New Testament, Jesus constantly cites G-d's mercy as the foundation of morality.
The Quranic conception of G-d, called Allah, seems neither just nor merciful.
It may just be a quibble, but the members of Hizb'allah are very distinctly not operating under a Judeo-Christian idea of G-d. To claim they do so is, by implication, to ignore the fact that no Judeo-Christian groups act so savagely toward innocents under the aegis of religion.
Yes, what the world needs is more insane religious fundamentalists seeing everything they do as justified by God. Great.
By the way, DB might be happy to note that in the latest New Yorker Hezbollah is referred to straightforwardly as "Party of God."
They may not specifically want to, but they're killing many many civilians. And when their response is, "Hey, we could have just nuked these entire cities," it kind of suggests a pretty weird perspective on the legitimate use of military force.
This entire focus on who is worse, Hezbollah or Israel, also strikes me as incredibly flawed. Would Hezbollah kill more civilians than Israel if it had the means? Sure, but is that a defense? I don't think there's anybody who views this problem as a question of which "side" is more sympathetic, other than the right wing pundits. If I didn't recognize the reason-clouding passions on all sides, I'd think it was an effort to change the subject...
Is there any way, Joel B., that I can support Israel if I choose not to be a genocidal maniac? Just curious.
I dunno. Let's try a different question: suppose anti-immigration forces moved in to an area in Southern Texas to fight the growing threat of illegal immigration, and the tactics chosen were sufficiently scary to the locals that they didn't want to be near. Or, perhaps, imagine that the forces believed that civilians were information leaks, and made efforts evicted them, not out of humanitarian good will, but for operational security. Of course, either of those efforts is not going to be 100% - what do you do about poor and sick people?
What then would we say?
Before the freaks attack, I should be clear that I'm no fan of Hizbollah. I do, however, think it sad that only a couple of weeks ago our president was celebrating what a wonderful Lebonese success had happened, and now there are commentators seriously discussing how children who didn't move away from their terrorist parents are legitimate targets of war. All for a war that is technically justifiable, but really quite stupid, from a strategic perspective. Israel is unwinding 20 years of progress here.
First, the author doesn't claim that Hezbollah never intentionally puts itself near civilians; it says that Hezbollah "stays as far away from them as possible." One can quibble with the definition of "possible," but it's not enough to say, "Aha! an example of Hezbollah putting itself near civilians!"
Second, it's my impression that the author's claim is that Hezbollah does not put itself near civilians as a military tactic in itself. That is a significant claim and I don't think anything in the article refutes it.
No, the way to fight, crazy religious extremism, is not with secular methods alone, but with both religion and with weapons. After all "Those who love Thy law have great peace." Psalm 119:165
As to the irony, I suppose there is some, God is a God of mercy and wrath, we often prefer to focus on the mercy because it is more pleasant, but the wrath is still there. As the preacher tought "There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven...A time for war and a time for peace."
As to the idea about "wanting" Israel to be genocidal maniacs...Here's the rub, Israel is fighting a war against genocidal maniacs. Sherman and Lincoln did not want a long guerrilla war in the south. Sherman's actions went a long way towards genuinely defeating the south. As long as war is made against Israel, Israel should respond swiftly, decisively, and painfully.
So turning to God means going ahead and killing a lot more people?
Re: Sherman, the major issue that I'd hope people would consider there is the one of efficacy. Sherman's plan, I believe at least according to the conventional wisdom, worked. It ended the war. The killing stopped. Same thing goes for fire-bombing Dresden or bombing Hiroshima.
So let's say Israel goes nuclear on Lebanon, to take the extreme example. Sure, that shows a lot of moxy, I guess you could say. But would it work? Would it really end the violence? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. And indeed, I'm pretty sure the Israel's current initiative won't either.
Unless something really good comes out of this, the fact is going to be that Israel killed a lot of people without anything really good coming out of it. I think that's a problem, I dunno about you.
Interestingly enough, though, I think you're the first fundamentalist Jewish person I've encountered. Unless that was irony. Pretty weird!
The irony is cleared up if you will recall that Israel has never, and will never, act as Joel wishes it to. In Judaism it is a core belief that no excuse whatsoever serves to justify the murder of an innocent- the end can never justify the means.
The day the Israelis begin fighting like Hizballah is the day the Israelis lose the very thing they are fighting for.
Unless something really good comes out of this, the fact is going to be that Israel killed a lot of people without anything really good coming out of it. I think that's a problem, I dunno about you.
I completely agree! That's the problem, if Israel does not go full bore against this threat, it will affirm to the Hezbollah that their god has delivered them. If you want to live in a truly f*ed up world try living in one where Hezbollah and more muslim nations are convinced that allah can deliver them from their "Israeli oppressors" it is a scenario I do not want to run through. Because it is a bad one. The violence stopped in both those cases because the agressors knew they were so badly beat there was no one they could appeal to. The religion of the Emperor was bested and demoralized. The appeals that the South had to God seeking their cause ended, their cause was destroyed.
As much as I hate to suggest it, we're thinking of the world through secular glasses. You can't, you have to think of it through "crazy fundamentalist glasses" and recognize that no action goes without its "divine" justification. If Israel plays nice, it's not because Israel is more moral...it's because Israel has a weaker god, if Israel is forced to cease fire, it's not because the international community demanded it, it's because allah spoke to the leaders of the world and petitioned on Hezbollah's behalf. These are important considerations to remember. Things through these, consider them. I know it is disturbing, but it generally leaves you with a fairly limited range of action.
Have you even read Joshua? Try Joshua 8 to start.
Tom the Pooklekufr:
I take issue with the translation of Hisb'allah as "The Party of G-d" rather than "The Party of Allah."
What's interesting is that the closest thing Muslims have to something resembling the Jewish concept of G-d, is their prophet Mohammed.
You might remember during the Danish cartoonist uproar how American and European muslims justified their rage. Mohammed, they explained, is perfect and serves as a model of how humans should act - i.e. muslims are commanded to act like Mohammed. Mah hu pera adam, af ata pera adam etc. . . . That echoes the Jewish idea that humans are to emulate G-d.
Similarly, American and European Muslims who justified violence explained, it is forbidden to make any depiction of Mohammed, echoing the Jewish prohibition of making depictions of G-d.
Also, they explained, to insult or hate Mohammed is to hate every Muslims - just as Jews recognize that atheists and other people who "bless" G-d are at heart anti-Jewish.
So while its true that the Islamic concept of allah has absolutely nothing in common with the G-d concept, we should recognize that Moslems worship the man Mohammed as a god.
The relevant question is...How do we get there? I guess my point is...consider any action Israel may make. How would Hezbollah perceive it? How would Iran perceive it? How would even the islamic nations Israel is marginally at peace at perceive weakness on the part of Israel.
Let me suggest that we are being exceedingly naive if we do not consider the "middle east" situation as one where there are "crazy religious fanatics" fighting in this war. We must realistically ask ourselves how does one fight such fanatics. Maybe I should let you guys suggest some alternatives, because I'd love to see them...What better alternatives does Israel have? Can it really seek peace through giving away land? That confirms to Hezbollah that "god" is on their side. What of any other action. What action can Israel reasonably make that could "pacify" this situation.
Positive mishna 189 commands that Jews "constantly remember what Amalek did." Even if the subsequent slaughters of Jews had not occured, a Jew is required to keep alive the distinction between honorable, just violence, and despicable predation. This distinction is what separates the IDF soldier from the homicide bomber in principle. Not degree. There can be no setting on the same scale the actions of a man protecting women and children, and a man attaching explosives to women and children.
While Winston Churchill said, "the price of greatness is responsibility," Israel has achieved greatness because of its responsibility to adhere to justice. It cannot afford to lose sight of its moral obligation to fully respond to a threat with whatever violence is necessary and just.
That doesn't mean the IDF should refrain from ripping new and interesting orifices into the members of Hamas and Hezbollah, just that it put bowel-loosening terror and a storm of bullets into the hearts of evil men in a civil manner. It has done so in the past, and cannot afford to act differently in the future.
It is difficult being an example to the world of a just people, but if Israel is to survive it must hold itself to the higher standard expected of a nation of priests who just happen to be ready and willing to rain deserved death on evil men.
As Winston Churchill also said, "there is no immoral way to rip out a Nazi's windpipe, as long as you are sure of his identity and malicious intent and there are no women around."
Mishna should be "mitzvah."
Oh- some links:
Islamic use of women and children as homicide bombers and cannon fodder.
If Israel does not disarm Hezbollah and the U.S. does not, simultaneously or shortly thereafter, forcibly remove Iran's mullah regime, Israel will IMO suffer a nuclear attack launched from Lebanon no more than five years from today.
I actually don't think we're that far apart. It's interesting about Amalek, and that you bring that tribe up because, we seen in Deuteronomy 25:17-19, that part of the wickedness of Amalek was that they attacked the weak in the rear ("civilians?"), and for this they were to totally wipe Amalek out. Interesting, I think.
But I don't think we're that far apart in terms of the need for the IDF to act "rightly." It's just hard to know what would actually deter Hezbollah and its partisans. It's harsh for Israel to take the step of "leave the southern 20 miles of Lebanon or risk harm." But that may be necessary.
Why is anyone even discussing with this person? Who, by the way, matches his moral vacuity with ignorance of history:
Sherman, was not nearly so kind as he marched through Atlanta
Huh??? Hood burned Atlanta. I suppose the "March to the Sea" is meant, but since when was that about killing civilians?
You write, "Is it just me, or does the first two paragraph of this articles directly contradict its thesis? Thesis: Hezbollah does not hide behind civilians. First paragraphs: A Hezbollah commander and other "Hezb guys" force themselves into the top floors of a ten-story apartment buiding, knowing that its likely to be targeted by Israel."
If you will consult the original article, you will find the following statement: 'My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians.'
The reporter differentiates between Hezbollah fighters and Hezbollah political members. The Hezbollah people he describes in that paragraph are clearly political members, not fighters. You may claim that there is no distinction, but the reporter's writing is absolutely consistent with the distinction he makes. There is no contradiction -- merely a misreading on your part.
You write, "If the civilians "left the area" to "Hezbollah fighters," doesn't that mean that "Hezbollah fighters" were in the area mixed with civilians before that?" No, it doesn't mean that Hezbollah fighters were there originally. It means that civilians left the area. It doesn't even state that Hezbollah fighters were ever there -- it describes the thought processes of the civilians, not the facts on the ground. I'll grant that the thought processes of the civilians imply the possibility of Hezbollah being there, but at this point we're on some very thin conjectural ice. To suggest that this proves inconsistency in the article is not reasonable. Given the wording, I'd suggest we both chalk this one up as too messy to call.
You write, ""In three trips over the last week to the south, where I came near enough to the fighting to hear Israeli artillery, and not just airstrikes, I saw exactly no fighters. Guys with radios with the look of Hezbollah always found me." Umm, how exactly did they "find" the author if they weren't around to begin with?" Again, you fail to note the author's clear differentiation between runners and fighters. At another point in the article the author refers to guys armed only with radios. Clearly, these are intended to be noncombatants. The author is saying that he observed runners, but no fighters.
Referring to a Hezbollah military man who lives among the civilians, you write, "Geez, maybe this is actually evidence that a "Hezbollah fighter" is living amongst the civilian population ("friends and neighbors")" Here you fail to distinguish between living among civilians and fighting among civilians. The article makes clear that the fighter resided during times of peace among civilians. It does not say that the fighter engaged in military operations while among the civilians. This is in fact the time-honored practice among militia, including our very own Minute Men. Surely you would not be so unfair as to condemn the Minute Men for hiding behind civilians, would you?
Hezbollah has signed a sentence of genocide on its own people by starting this war. Whatever else happens, the Shia of Lebanon will suffer catastrophic population losses within five years.
Note that I linked up doing the right thing with the avoidance of targeting civilians. I then said that sometimes I wonder if Israel is not targeting civilians enough, a little impetuous, I suppose fair enough, even then, I wasn't saying bar none, Israel should kill every single person who lives in Israel, but that I wonder if Israel isn't being harsh enough. I then refer to eliminating the resistance and this is questioned as morally objectionable? I'm confused, is Israel now not entitled to at least eliminate Hezbollah?
As to my supposed ignorance of history, I'm glad you could point that out, that I wrote march through Atlanta as though it wasn't referring to the whole of the Savannah and Atlanta Campaigns. Granted the Atlanta campaign was gentler, possibly due to the upcoming election, but once the election was secured, the Savannah campaign was thoroughly harsh, targenting civilian infrastructure, livestock, ownership, crops. Everything, maybe the individuals escaped alive, but civilians were made to feel the pain of the war. To army corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.
I leave it to the reader's judgment as to the measure of hostility of such districts and towns that Israel is striking in Lebanon.
You wish. The non-Shia (Sunnis, Druze, Christians, etc.) blame the Shia and Hezbollah. Michael Totten agrees:
I believe that the ends can never justify the means. I believe that Israel can afford to be neither too lax nor too bloodthirsty with dealing with the barbarians, for the former will lead to Israel being destroyed by its neighbors and the latter will lead to Israel being destroyed by itself.
Remember that Negative Mitzvah 293 commands the Jew "not to pity the pursuer, but to kill him before he can kill or rape the pursued." Thousands of years later, Adam Smith would rephrase this as "mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent."
It is as much an error not to adequately retaliate against violence as it is to over-retaliate. Failure to protect the innocent against evil will get them killed immediately, and failure to uphold their innocence will get them killed in the long run.
Israel therefore has to navigate the razor-thin line between adequate and morally obligated violence against those who will stop at nothing short of a sucking chest wound in their effort to eliminate Israel women and children first, and losing sight of the very reason why it is fighting for survival by fighting in a way designed to ensure its survival at all costs.
Israel has an obligation toward its survival to ruthlessly retaliate against the barbarians, and an obligation toward its worthiness of survival to just as ruthlessly adhere to morality and civility where its enemy sees none. As I said, it's a razor-thin line few other nations have even noticed existed.
From what I understand, you do not see the need for Israel to restrain itself to the mere ruthless and brutal retaliation against the men aiming at Israeli women and children; you seem to wish for Israel to itself purposely aim for the innocent.
To the extent we both believe that Israel must fight as hard as possible against those terrorists willing to see it destroyed, we are of one mind. But to the extent you allow Israel even a fraction of the savagery of its enemies toward innocents, I am bitterly opposed.
I think simply I can agree with what you say. It is a very fine line and it is a nearly impossible one to navigate. One problem I see is that the determination of one is a civilian is not an easy one much as the article points out.
In fact the major difficulty in determing civilianity to an individual is that there is certainly a range of actions in lebanon. I certain agree that it would be wrong for Israel to target disinterested lebanese is beirut. However, if an individual stays in the south provides aid and comfort to hezbollah at what point does this person become a legitimate target. I expect that I may be more willing to say that that person is no longer cloaked in civilianity. And to what extent should that individual be made to feel the punishment of striking or aiding those who strike against Israel.
Just as you pointed out that mercy to the guilty is injustice to the innocent we must be careful to not find someone not guilty because we deem the punishment too harsh.
It is not a fine line. War is messy.
War is messy, morality is not. And the Israelis know that while a human may get confused in both matters in the fog of war, G-d will not.
Amazing. I'd have called it 20 years -- or 36 years -- of decay.
Lebanon had a democracy until 1970. It wasn't much of a democracy, but it was the best democracy any group of Arabs had had or ever has had.
And they destroyed it. Not Israel. Arabs. There's probably a lesson in there somewhere.
Tell us about your military experience. The only people who correctly draw such bright lines are true pacifists. The rest of us live in this world.
You have in one shot introduced the chickenhawk meme, suggested that I am a complete pacifist, misread thoughts of pacifism into my previous comments, and omniscience into my statement that "[humans]get confused in both matters in the fog of war."
In keeping with my belief that no one under 40 knows anything about life or religion, feel free to ignore everything I say.
But please try not to put words into my mouth when I'm already struggling to make sense.
Try calling me Tom H. rather than Tom P. You're Tom P. I'm Tom H.
I am familiar with true pacifists as my church - the Church of the Brethren - is one of the original, recognized in World War One, consciencious objector/pacifist churches. Go here.
War is messy. The only way to make the distinctions you advocate is to not fight at all. This works only when the next world is your overwhelming focus.
Soldiers know this. You don't. And I called you on it.
I think you're being overly harsh on Salon, and quoting parts of the article out of context.
You seem to be taking issue with the article only because it is balanced and subtle, not completely one-sided.
For example, you quote "people quickly left the area to the Hezbollah fighters with their radios and motorbikes" as evidence that the article is undermining itself. But the very next sentence is, "But other attacks seem gratuitous, fishing expeditions, or simply intended to punish anything and anyone even vaguely connected to Hezbollah." That is, the article is engaged in fair reporting and analysis. It's strange to me that you cannot understand a balanced article. Journalism is best when it looks honestly at a situation, reporting both sides, examples and counterexamples. Including counterexamples doesn't undermine anything, unless you are expecting propaganda instead of journalism.
The executive summary at the top of the article seems fair. Of course it is an over-simplification - it is only one sentence. But it is the thesis of the article. Again, including counterexamples in the article makes it a stronger article. It'd be dumb to say, there's never been a militant Hezbollah fighter among civilians. So it says, yes there has been, Hezbollah is a large organization that interacts with civilians, but it's a myth to think it's Hezbollah's MO. Seems logical to me.
What part of Sheik Tawouk, the Hezbollah commander for the south, don't you understand? I stopped reading your nonsense after that.
Randal, that's like saying an article with the thesis "Al Qaeda NEVER targets Americans" is balanced because Al Qaeda sometimes kills non-Americans, and the author has never seen Al Qaeda kill Americans.
At the end of the day,
Israeli actions, with American equipment, killed children. Lots of children.
Maybe Israel just has bad aim and is not ready for the weapon systems she has been given. Maybe the religious coalition needs to be better schooled in the life ratio: one to one, no matter the ethnicity or religion. Maybe Israel should not be in this position to begin with...
Also what religious coalition are you talking about? Your statement about Israel maybe not being able to handle the weapons systems they are given seems to hint at racism. (not anti semitism mind you, but specifically directed against the people that live in Israel) Would you say the same thing about Spain, a country at comparable levels as Israel?
You are right Israel should not be in this position. If Israels neighbors would not have launch genocidal wars againist they wouldn't be in this position.
If Hzb and Hamas and other terrorist groupd would put down their weapons there would be peace. If Israel disarms there will be no Israel.
At the end of the day,
Israeli actions, with American equipment, killed children. Lots of children.
And? Are you implying that because they killed some children, they are in the wrong, regardless of other considerations? By this reasoning, Hezbollah could literally fight with babies strapped to their back and Israel would still be in the wrong.
Killing civilians! Do say, how nasty when you have had your school buses machine gunned not to practice an other worldly forebearance. Like some of us here, sitting on our asses and quite comfortable, thank you.
Doubtless this self restraint would stand untarnished under fire, for sixty years, while you dodge rockets. Yet I have a suspicion that there's something of the soap box to it. The cheap thrill of an affected moral superiority, the equally cheap opportunity to fault someone who's shoes you're not in, are tempting to those in need of an ego boost with no price to pay, no decisions to be made and a ton of hot air to exude.
It helps if you can artfully forget that the entire purpose of various breeds of muslim murderers is to kill civilians,[quick, time for a "we can't sink to their level" mind numbing cliche.] which is why they call it "terror".
The Slate article is of course a load of crap, the use of civilians as cover is standard and not just in Lebanon and why else do the soldiers of allah dress in civilian garb ?
This is a new kind of war, one where civilians are both target and defense, not a part of but rather the focus of that war. To recognize this is to know that the term"collateral damage" has little if any meaning, and to fight the war accordingly.
Just admit it.
????
They are proving ineffective at targeting.
Whether it's the technology, or the warriors manning the weapons, maybe they have not been properly trained or are not up to the sophisticated weapons systems.
Maybe they soldiers need technology a little less sophisticated if they are wreaking such havoc to their own gameplan with it.
Surely no one here is arguing that such a strike is effective in accomplishing the stated goals?
Because really, the closer you get to justifying "misses"/errors/wasted strikes like this, the further and further you get from "winning" anything solid.
I mean, you realize this, right? It's a setback to the stated military goal of disarming Hezzbollah, getting back the captured soldiers dead or alive, and silencing the weapons used against Israel's civilians.
Don't listen to the cheerleaders like DB and wife, who can justify anything it sounds like. Think rationally. Does this type of "missing" help or hurt the cause? That's all I'm saying. Blaming others can't take that away, so admit it and move on, thinking how you'd proceed differently, knowing now what you didn't know then. (That the "miss" would kill women and children and help lose support of the international community.) If you'd target exactly the same way, no change in coordinates, no hesitation, knowing how things would come out, you've already lost but the body is still moving
But the most important fact to note is that the reporter observes that there were no fighters in the vicinity once the fighting started. Again, the thesis that Hezbollah fighters avoided contact with civilians is supported.
I'd like to add an overall observation: all the moralizing about the holy duty Israel has to slaughter children -- and the counterarguments as well -- misses the big picture. The only justification of violence is the achievement of desirable long-term policy goals. I agree that a policy that kills a thousand people today to save a million people tomorrow is a prudent one. Yet nobody can show that all this killing will accomplish anything in the long run. Muslims kill Israelis, Israelis kill Muslims, and what is accomplished? More funerals, more hate, and nothing is solved.
The Israelis and the Muslims have lost all strategic perspective. Politically speaking, they are both hysterical, blithering maniacs engaging in an orgy of endless killing. Debating which maniac is more justified as he runs amok seems futile to me. The time has come for the international community to step in and impose and enforce a peace settlement upon these deranged parties.
30 July 2006
A Lebanese Shia explains how Hezbollah uses human shields
Judeoscope
In a letter to the editor of the Berlin left-wing daily Die Tageszeitung (TAZ) a Lebanese Shia explains how after Israel’s withdrawal from South Lebanon, Hezbollah stored rockets in bunkers in his town and built a school and residence over it.
I lived until 2002 in a small southern village near Mardshajund that is inhabited by a majority of Shias like me. After Israel left Lebanon, it did not take long for Hezbollah to take have its say in other towns. Received as successful resistance fighters and armed to the teeth, they stored rockets in bunkers in our town as well. The social work of the Party of God consisted in building a school and a residence over these bunkers! A local sheikh explained to me laughing that the Jews would lose in any event because the rockets would either be fired at them or if they attacked the rockets depots, they would be condemned by world opinion on account of the dead civilians. These people do not care about the Lebanese population, they use them as shields, and, once dead, as propaganda. As long as they continue existing there, there will be no tranquility and peace.
Dr. Mounir Herzallah
Berlin-Wedding
(translated from the German by David Ouellette)
German Original:
Ich wohnte bis 2002 in einem kleinen Dorf im Süden nahe Mardschajun, das mehrheitlich von Schiiten wie mir bewohnt ist. Nach Israels Verlassen des Libanon dauerte es nicht lange, bis die Hisbollah bei uns und in allen anderen Ortschaften das Sagen hatte. Als erfolgreiche Widerstandskämpfer begrüßt, erschienen sie waffenstarrend und legten auch bei uns Raketenlager in Bunkern an. Die Sozialarbeit der Partei Gottes bestand darin, auf diesen Bunkern eine Schule und ein Wohnhaus zu bauen! Ein lokaler Scheich erklärte mir lachend, dass die Juden in jedem Fall verlieren, entweder weil die Raketen auf sie geschossen werden oder weil sie, wenn sie die Lager angriffen, von der Weltöffentlichkeit verurteilt werden ob der dann zivilen Toten. Die libanesische Bevölkerung interessiert diese Leute überhaupt nicht, sie benutzen sie als Schilder und wenn tot als Propaganda. Solange sie dort existieren, wird es keine Ruhe und Frieden geben.
Dr. Mounir Herzallah
Berlin-Wedding
I read this to mean that you think that Israel is a baby murdering machine and America is the enabler. Then you say:
I can only interpret this to mean that Israel's attacks are poor strategy towards the end of stopping the Rocket Firing, Truck Bomb driving, fun loving civilians who just "happen" to be in Lebanon. At any rate, its easy to demand that those you disagree with "admit it" when you simply move the goal posts when someone calls you out on a crazy statement.
What were those goal posts again?
Maybe an A for effort, that I'll give you.
But performance ?
At least some of the Israeli strikes in Lebanon are against 'military' targets, whatever that may mean when virtually the entire population of the south is Hezbollah.
There's a disporportionality there, Just.
Professor Bernstein is absolutely right. HRW is horribly biased against Israel. As is Amnesty International. As is B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights group. All of these organizations have criticized Israel for torture, violations of international law, illegitimate destruction of Palestinian property, mass arrests without trial. Clearly, all are cartoonishly biased. Thanks to Professor Bernstein for setting us straight.
I am no Pyrrhonist. I am humble enough to accept inference and Bayesian theory to inform me within reasonable certainty when I had better fight with deadly force than die.
I argue that while Man of course cannot know with absolute certainty the morality of his actions, as you rightly acknowledge only G-d can do, he can and must act on whatever judgment he can muster lest his ethical quandary be rendered a moot point by a knife or bullet.
Israel is faced with the necessity of coming to as close an accurate judgment of just and adequate retaliation as possible. Of course it will be flawed, only an approximation to the correct judgment rendered by G-d's omniscience. But no man has the leisure to acquire the absolute certainty your church requires in matters of deadly force, lest the enemy's knife or bullet prove the matter beyond all doubt.
What's the point of retaliation? What does it accomplish?
Well, for one thing, it kills the men who strap bombs on themselves and blow up schoolbuses and cafes. It also kills the men who find women and children suitable cannon-fodder to hide behind. And it kills the men aiming unguided missiles into areas laden with women and children. And better yet, it puts bowel-loosening fear into those men who would teach their children to become martyrs.
What would non-retaliation accomplish?
You ask, what would non-retaliation accomplish? I have already offered a lengthy proposal in another topic for a constructive approach to the problems of the Middle East. There are hundreds of possible approaches that would have a greater likelihood of success than seeking revenge.
Professor Bernstein is absolutely right. HRW is horribly biased against Israel. As is Amnesty International. As is B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights group.
Yes, all three organisations are virulently anti-Israel, and have no regard whatsoever for the truth. Glad to see you finally understand this.
"IAF footage that purports to show rockets launched by the Party of God from Qana"
It's interesting that even from David Bernstein we have that "purports" combined with an apparently uncritical acceptance that civilians were killed. I expect both things are true--civilians were killed in Qana and they were near a legitimate military target--- but it's curious that after New Orleans, Haditha, etc. people accept liberal atrocity stories at face value. It's unclear why Israel has any incentive to kill 50 civilians in a target which it knows has no military value; it is very clear that Hezbollah has ample incentive to convince the world that 50 civilians were killed at such a target.