If Israel has the right to use force in self defence, so do its neighbours

[bemildred]

---

It is important to bear in mind that in both the case of the Hamas raid that led to the invasion of Gaza and the Hizbullah attack that led to the assault on Lebanon it was Israel's regular armed forces, not its civilians, that were targeted. It is hard to see how this can be filed under the rubric of "terrorism", rather than a straightforward tactical defeat for Israel's much-vaunted military machine; one that Israel seems loth to acknowledge.

Some of this has to do with the paradox of power: the stronger the Israeli army becomes, the more susceptible and vulnerable it becomes to even a minor setback. The loss of even one tank, the capture of one soldier or damage done to one warship has a negative-multiplier effect: Israel's "deterrent" power is dented out of all proportion to the act itself. Israel's retaliation is thus partly a matter of restoring its deterrence, partly sheer vengeance, and partly an attempt to compel its adversaries to do its bidding.

But there is also something else at work: Israel's fear of acknowledging any form of equivalence between the two sides. And it is precisely this that seems to provide the moral and psychological underpinning for Israel's ongoing assault in both Gaza and Lebanon - the sense that it may have met its match in audacity, tactical ingenuity and "clean" military action from an adversary who may even have learned a thing or two from Israel itself, and may be capable of learning even more in the future.

There has of course been nothing "clean" about Israeli military action throughout the many decades of conflict in Palestine and Lebanon. Israel's wanton disregard for civilian life during the past few days is neither new nor out of character. For those complaining about violations of Israeli sovereignty by Hizbullah or Hamas, it may be useful to recall the tens of thousands of Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty since the late 60s, the massive air raids of the mid-70s and early 80s, the 1978 and 1982 invasions and occupation of the capital Beirut, the hundreds of thousands of refugees, the 28-year-old buffer zone and proxy force set up in southern Lebanon, the assassinations, car bombs, and massacres, and finally the continuing violations of Lebanese soil, airspace and territorial waters and the detention of Lebanese prisoners even after Israel's withdrawal in 2000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1822923,00.html?gusrc=rss

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Thanks for posting this

gives a different perspective, and from a European newspaper, not one from the ME.

[bemildred]

6. I believe in having the same rules for everybody.

No special treatment.

[malaise]

2. Great article.

That's all I've been saying from day one.

[kenny blankenship]

3. ...and so do its captive populations

After all, Palestinians aren't in any sense "neighbors" of Israel: they're prisoners in their own land.

[melnjones]

4. kick. eom.

[DELUSIONAL]

5. my concern is that we (Americans) will pay for Israel's current war

war will not equal "peace" when this is over. Only a regrouping and preparation for the next war.


However Israel's latest adventure ends, it will not produce greater sympathy and understanding between west and east, or a downturn in extremism. Indeed the most likely outcome is that a new wave of virulent and possibly unconventional anti-western terrorism may well crash against this and other shores. We will all - Israelis, Arabs and westerners - suffer as a result.

[DemocraticLeft]

26. Intellectual midget alert..here on DU

[bemildred]

27. No sense of irony, I take it? nt

[AlamoDemoc]

7. The EU talks both sides of their mind...Denmark is recent example

at at a security counsel demanding Israel to leave Gaza.

[Minnesota Libra]

8. It's been reported that Hizbullah and Hamas.........

......will put its forces/terrorists among civilians..In doing that, if Israel wants to wipe out those carrying out suicidal attacks and other terrorist acts inside Israel then Israeli forces just about have to target civilians.

The alternative is set back and let Hizbullah/Hamas/Arabs/Muslims/Extremists to do whatever they want to Israel whenever they want to do it.

There has got to be a way of preventing Arab/Muslim/Hizbullah/Hamas/?? attacks on Israel and preventing Israel from attacking its Arab/Muslim/Terrorist neighbors.

[barb162]

9. Compromise

"There has got to be a way of preventing Arab/Muslim/Hizbullah/Hamas/?? attacks on Israel and preventing Israel from attacking its Arab/Muslim/Terrorist neighbors"

[Minnesota Libra]

15. Israel has already proved it can compromise so the job will.............

....be to get people like the Iranian President - who has sworn to wipe Israel off the map - to compromise. GOOD LUCK

[barb162]

22. I know, I know....

[allfathersgodi]

10. The Terrorists were not defending their borders...

Hezbollah and Hamas are not defending their selves. Do you really call launching Katyusha and Kassam Rockets at Israeli civilians self defense? Do you call suicide-bombing self-defense? Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations, it is as simple as that. They are not like other Guerillas, such as our Colonial soldiers in our war of Independence, or the French Resistance in WWII. Hamas and Hezbollah deliberately target civilians, their attacks are directed at civilians.

Where as the Israelis do not deliberately target civilians, sure civilians die in their retaliatory and pre-emptive attacks, but the Israelis do not deliberately target civilians with the goal of killing civilians. The Israelis want to kill Hamas and Hezbollah, civilians who die are unfortunate.

The Israelis are caught in a brutal situation, surrounded by peoples who want to finish what Hitler started. They have realy acted with restraint, after all they have the largest Nuclear stockpile in the area. If the Israelis wanted to they could wipe out Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan with the press of buttons. But they do not. And you got to ask yourself why they do not.

[CuteNFuzzy]

12. "Israelis do not deliberately target civilians"

oh yes they do

[Andromeda]

13. Oh no they don't.

[wellst0nev0ter]

25. Oh Yes They Do

http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=113

[pelsar]

14. so how does that work...

the briefing before a mission:

ok guys listen up, this time were going after women and children...kids below 10yrs are the preferred targets. Use the hollow points on them. If you have the opportunity and if you see women hanging laundry....thats a good secondary target.....

[barb162]

24. and maybe hez should stop using civilians as shields

[Minnesota Libra]

16. Examples and sources??? Not your opinion but ..........

.....verifiable media sources with working links showing the world's opinion that Israel targeted civilians.

I'm officially asking has Israel ever carried out suicide bombings inside any Arab/Muslim/Hamas/Hezballoh/?? area?? The Arabs/Muslims/etc/etc have carried out suicide bombings inside Israel many many times. Oh, but that's allowed isn't it because.................... :sarcasm: Right?? Right!! :sarcasm:

[barb162]

23. They are targetting Hez terrorists

and their transport for arms to Lebanon. They bring in the arms by air, roads, etc

[eyl]

11. That article begins with a falsehood

The initial attack, where 2 soldiers were kidnapped and 3 killed, was covered by a rocket barrage at Israeli communities in the area, which injured 5 civilians.

Besides that, I'm not sure I'm getting the point of the article. Even if Hizbullah has a right to self-defense *arguable, any more than the Mob has a right to self-defense), how were they excercising that right by crossing the border and killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers? What were they defending against?

[Minnesota Libra]

17. Very good points especially about Hezballoh supposedly..........

....defending itself.

It seems to me that the far right is just as rabidly wrong in their hatred for Arabs/Muslims/Hezballoh/Hamas/etc as the far left is in their hatred of Israel. Whatever happened to fairness anyway?? :shrug:

[allfathersgodi]

18. Fairness?

You play fair against an oppossing military of a nation, or a guerilla force covered under the Geneva Conventions. Asking to be fair to Hezbollah is asking a woman to be fair to her rapist. The woman has every right to castrate her rapist via her fingernails or gouge his eyes out. I could care less if Hezbollah and Hamas thugs were executed by military tribunals.

[Minnesota Libra]

19. You miss understood my reason and use of the word "fairness"..............

.....I am asking for fairness in our views of the Arab/Muslim and Israeli problems.

NO, I DO NOT think anyone can be fair about their dealings with someone or some group that has sworn - at different times - to wipe you and your off the face of the map.

In another post I turned that whole issue around and made it personal and then explored how I would react if someone or some group swore to wipe me and mine off the face of the earth. As I admitted in that post, I am just human enough to adopt a "get them before they get us" attitude and I went on to admit that I probably would go well beyond the "trigger happy" stage in my attempts to protect me and mine.

Please believe me when I say I don't think there is a way of compromising with someone or some group whose stated aim it is to completely destroy someone they don't care for.

I'm just questioning the two opposite extremes and wondering what ever happened to a reasonable, fair, and level headed view from outsiders.

[bemildred]

20. I don't think it characterized Hiz'bullah's assault and capture operation.

I would be surprised, if the question were put to him, if this fellow would call it "self defense", but I would not want to put words in his mouth.

The point of the article is quite simple, that everybody else has the same right to self-defense when attacked as is claimed by certain governments and quasi-governments. It is an attack on the assumptions of state legitimacy and state monopoly on the use of force, particularly as used by certain parties.

It is something like the "right to exist" question. The US Declaration of Independence says that governments rule by the just consent of the governed. If one accepts that, any state's right to exist is conditional, and it may be justly overthrown by those it presumes to rule.

Any right to self-defense is conditional, and in conflict with everyone else's similar right to self-defense. No one is required to just sit there when attacked, regardless of the attackers right to defend himself, and in general anyone has a right to reply in kind when attacked.

[pelsar]

21. lets forget the "whos right and whos wrong" for a second.

Yes, everyone has the right to protect themselves.....and even if you provoke the "big guy" who then beats the shit out of you" you still have the right to "defend yourself"....and when you provoke him again, and he once again beats you up, you still can try to defend yourself.....

its just not a very bright thing to do.....somewhere between beatings if your life has any value to yourself, you might want to think up a different strategy.