Comments | jurph: Israel is within its rights

jurph

Israel is within its rights

Jul 26, 2006 08:48

I have not yet seen a more concise statement of the impossible standard to which European and Middle Eastern countries are holding Israel in the war in Lebanon. The arguments are clear and to the point, starting with the headline: "Israel is within its rights". It will probably only take you about five minutes to read the whole article. I have ( Read more... )

casus belli, israel, war, double standard, laws of war, terrorism

Comments 8

mantis_tobogan July 26 2006, 18:16:32 UTC

i think that this article and entire argument are based off of a false assertion that hezbollah is a terrorist organization. hezbollah is an independent militia that was formed to fight the invading israeli forces in southern lebanon after the 6 day war. their purpose being to drive israeli forces out of lebanese territory and enforce the disregarded sovereignty of lebanon ( ... )

jurph July 26 2006, 19:13:31 UTC

You and the authors appear to agree on several points. The authors certainly concur with your assertion that Hezbollah is not just a terrorist group. I don't think their opinions flow from that assumption at all. To wit:
Hezbollah is not simply a terrorist gang, like Germany's Baader-Meinhof or Italy's Red Brigades. It is a substantial political and military organization [...] that has operated freely on Lebanese territory for many years, periodically launching attacks against Israel.
You correctly point out that Israel illegally occupied Lebanon until 6 years ago, but until the most recent attacks by Hezbollah, they had vacated the area. I'm not sure whether Israel's retention of POWs after the conclusion of the war is a legitimate cause for Hezbollah to renew hostilities - this may be the strongest case they have ( ... )

mantis_tobogan July 26 2006, 18:57:27 UTC

as an addendum, i have to say that i think the US backed plan is right, from what i've seen. except for the parts that don't immediately stop the bombing of civilian populations (by both sides) or details on the prisoner exchange.

jurph July 26 2006, 19:26:09 UTC

And in case it seems like I'm giving Israel a pass here, I'm not - their targeting process is wilfully ignorant in many cases. It has been since the Liberty incident, and I'm pretty sure that whenever Israel thinks they can plausibly claim something is even remotely a legitimate target, they're happy to blow it to hell. Their military history is littered with bad faith actions like the Liberty, and I don't think any of their planners worry too much about whether a given station wagon leaving a Hezbollah-controlled area is or isn't carrying soldiers.

jes5199 July 26 2006, 23:07:28 UTC

but what's with this "apparently deliberate" killing of UN observers? http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=4b9ba160-82a2-4cd4-ac4e-d0152ae6b964&k=88237

jurph July 27 2006, 11:35:28 UTC

I don't think Kofi Annan has any military experience at all, so his judgment that something is or isn't deliberate holds zero water with me. However, given the repeated radio calls and artillery shelling, I'd say that either

(a) Israel really fucked up badly,
or
(b) the UN observation post was observing something Israel didn't want them to see (and was therefore eliminated)
or
(c) one of the four UN personnel onsite was aiding Hezbollah via radio relays or open-channel reporting of Israeli positions (and was therefore eliminated)

(A) is the most plausible but would suck; (C) would be a legitimate targeting; I wouldn't have any trouble believing (B), though. See my comment above about their targeting process being wilfully ignorant.

0olong August 12 2006, 10:20:23 UTC

So, I've been thinking...

...doesn't that exact same argument apply to almost everything Hezbollah's done?

jurph August 12 2006, 11:33:05 UTC

Which argument, exactly?