thenuge
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
I thought you said Hezbollah wanted a cease fire?... Iwas relpying to your first post. I think you posted the second one before I was done writing my counterpoint up.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
'Disproportionate' In What Moral Universe?
- Thread starter GMan1976
- Start date
I thought you said Hezbollah wanted a cease fire?... Iwas relpying to your first post. I think you posted the second one before I was done writing my counterpoint up.
thenuge
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
I'm not sure I understand...
Then if Israel is fighitng a "normal" war, Israel should capitilize on a cease fire proposal and destroy her enemy while they're down.
In order to win, Hizbullah has to not lose. i.e., survive in some form short of annihilation.
In order to lose, Israel has to simply not win. As long as they fail to wipe out Hizbullah as a military entity, they will have given the propaganda victory to the other side who "withstood" the mighty Israeli Defence Forces. Just like Saddam was able to claim that he "won" Gulf War I because we chose to leave him in power.
The classic Catch-22 of counterinsurgency.
thenuge
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Looks like the Israeli's are in a bit of a sticky wicket.......as it were.
thull
Well-Known Member
i wonder how their "war plan" that was five years in the making could not have forseen this. especially with the daily heeping of lessons from Iraq. or did they forsee all of this, and decide this was the best option. hard to imagine this would be their absolute best option.
That's fine, but it's a matter of degree. You'll never get the average Muslim to say "I heart Israel", but you hope for some degree of tolerance and the least and a grudging "Israel has the right to exist" at the most.
Most of the moderate Arab states have accepted that stance, and while Israel hasn't raised too much trouble since the al-Aqsa intifada, the governments of said states have some leeway.
Now what you're seeing is mass protests in the streets, and even people blaming Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait et al for what Israel's doing. Think their governments are going to do America (Israel's protectors) any favors while that's happening? They're terrified of some united radical Islamist front being ignited into a revolution.
GMan1976
Banned
and so should we....
Judaism and Zionism are two separate and distinct concepts - conflating the two doesn't help anyone.
GMan1976
Banned
very true, and there are plenty of orthodox jews who are not zionist. however, Israel being a "Jewish State", my point is that (for mostly irrational reasons) the israelis AND the jews don't have too many fans worldwide (and, for the latter, has been so for a long time).
(friend of a friend of a friend says>>>) The reason that the mossad saw no reason to penetrate hezbollah was because the Israelis had an agrement with Syria (verifiable) where Israel would not protest Syria's occupation of Lebanon, and in return Syria would keep a tight reign over Hezbollah. When the US pressured Syria out so that we could get our "democracy" in Lebanon, the Syrians were pretty pissed and were hoping that this would happen to show that Syria was needed to keep the peace in that region.
Cate
Pretty much invincible
I think that TurnandBurn has one of the most salient points - that the goal isn't for Islamic states/Islamic majority states to embrace Israel so much as at least tolerate it.
And I think that while we spend a lot of time debating whether or not Israel has the right to the level of response they've given, the more important question is whether or not it's a good idea. I don't feel informed enough on the subject to put forth an argument one way or the other, but I think it would be good to consider the effect that Israel's response might have on the future of democracy in Lebanon. After all, after the Cedar Revolution, things were starting to look up for the non-freaky-fundamentalist-militants in Lebanon. And while some of those same people understand perfectly that what Israel is doing is a direct result of Hezbollah's actions, there are others who only see that their houses are getting blown up, and some of those are even turning to Hezbollah for support.
Again, let me make clear - I don't feel informed enough about the situation to take a position, outside of the usual "unprovoked kidnappings and bombings are terrorism, and terrorism is bad." But Israel's current approach seems to lend itself more to a future where Lebanon is unable to strike, rather than one where Lebanon isn't inclined to strike (which I guess leads to the "better to be respected or feared" debate). They may find themselves in a position where they have no other option than to wipe Lebanon completely off the map, which is arguably a less positive outcome than one in which Lebanon remains and Hezbollah is gone.
But then, I'm just an unfrozen caveman. Your world frightens and confuses me.
And I think that while we spend a lot of time debating whether or not Israel has the right to the level of response they've given, the more important question is whether or not it's a good idea. I don't feel informed enough on the subject to put forth an argument one way or the other, but I think it would be good to consider the effect that Israel's response might have on the future of democracy in Lebanon. After all, after the Cedar Revolution, things were starting to look up for the non-freaky-fundamentalist-militants in Lebanon. And while some of those same people understand perfectly that what Israel is doing is a direct result of Hezbollah's actions, there are others who only see that their houses are getting blown up, and some of those are even turning to Hezbollah for support.
Again, let me make clear - I don't feel informed enough about the situation to take a position, outside of the usual "unprovoked kidnappings and bombings are terrorism, and terrorism is bad." But Israel's current approach seems to lend itself more to a future where Lebanon is unable to strike, rather than one where Lebanon isn't inclined to strike (which I guess leads to the "better to be respected or feared" debate). They may find themselves in a position where they have no other option than to wipe Lebanon completely off the map, which is arguably a less positive outcome than one in which Lebanon remains and Hezbollah is gone.
But then, I'm just an unfrozen caveman. Your world frightens and confuses me.
The islamic world are great at creating propoganda. The west and Israel would never show the direct casualties of the rockets, whereas in the islamic world the first responders to the bombings are the media. When a bus blows up in israel you see very little damage, maybe a picture of someone crying. When the world trade center fell, you did not see the jumpers after hitting the ground. In the islamic world you see actual victims, dead or maimed, mostly children. They know how we respond to photos of dead and injured children and have no problem giving us them.