Why Israel is right to bomb Lebanon
Imagine, if you will, there was a group of Anti-Australian Rebels living in Fiordland. These rebels were launching unguided rockets into Melbourne and Sydney, indescriminately maiming and killing. Occasionally, they were launching raids and kidnapping Australian citizens. (Okay, you have to ignore the obvious logisitical problems here.)
The New Zealand Government is doing nothing to close down the rebels, or stop the supply of weapons and money from other Anti-Australian Governments and supporters in the South Pacific.
If you were Prime Minister of Australia, would you:
A. Sit on your hands, engage in dialogue hoping for a peaceful resolution while the attacks continue.
B. Bomb the rebels bases and try to cut off all supply routes to the rebels.
If you answered A, then imagine what your political opponents would campaign on at the next election. And you know they would win.
The New Zealand Government is doing nothing to close down the rebels, or stop the supply of weapons and money from other Anti-Australian Governments and supporters in the South Pacific.
If you were Prime Minister of Australia, would you:
A. Sit on your hands, engage in dialogue hoping for a peaceful resolution while the attacks continue.
B. Bomb the rebels bases and try to cut off all supply routes to the rebels.
If you answered A, then imagine what your political opponents would campaign on at the next election. And you know they would win.
posted by Michael at
9:54 AM
16 Comments:
So you're supporting the bombing of Lebanon so that the incumbant Israeli political party can win the next election?
Geez, the things some people will do for power....
By
strong light, at 9:41 PM
Strong Light - Dim light, more like it.
I support Israel is bombing the Hizbollah strongholds in Lebanon because the Lebanese government isn't doing anything to stop that Terrorist group from indiscriminately killing people in Israel.
The first duty of Government is to protect it's citizens.
By
Michael, at 9:31 AM
Hold on. We're not to question your reasoning?
The 300+ people who have died in Lebanin and the 1000+ people who are injured - that's reasonable? acceptable? other countries should do the same? There isn't a better way?
Should Lebanon retaliate in order to protect it's citizens?
By
strong light, at 9:24 PM
Lebanon would be within it's rights to bomb Israeli targets.
The reason they haven't is because they're letting the Israelis do the dirty work for them - blowing up the Syrian and Iranian backed Hizbollah organisations in South Beiruit and South Lebanon.
Remember, the Israelis warned civilians to get out, and are targeting Hizbollah, whereas Hizbollah are firing at Israeli civilians - not the Israeli military.
By
Michael, at 9:16 AM
You're so right. Israel has been treating the Lebanese so humanely. I can only hope that when another state bombs the crap out of Wellington they drop a flier and give me some warning so that my family can attempt to flee before our house is bombed and our neighbours are maimed.
I tell you what, though. I'd be a tad miffed with the companies making Israel's weapons if I were Israeli. Considering that they're 'targeted' weapons that aren't being fired at civilians, they're not very good at not hitting civilians. I think there's a consumer rights issue in their somewhere.....
By
strong light, at 12:42 AM
Also - your counter-factual analogy with Fiordland is a tad disengenious considering that Fiordland is not highly populated and Beirut is densley populated. Inner-city Auckland may have given your analogy a touch more credibility. w
By
strong light, at 12:45 AM
Strong Light - You are an angry person. You don't respect my view, or even try to debate it sensibly.
So, as sole owner and publisher of this website, you are now banned from posting for a month.
If you do, I will ban you for life - using the server tool to ban your IP address - and I will complain to your ISP.
By
Michael, at 9:32 PM
Wow! That seems pretty harsh! I was quite entertained by the 'conversations' between you two. Personally i didn't think strong-light sounded angry - i could be wrong but then i suppose they don't have to opportunity to reply to you about this anyway' Just an idea Michael, but perhaps if you don't want comments you should remove that option so you can just blog without others replying?
By
I hate conflict, at 6:52 PM
Oh spoilsport! I was enjoying that debate! Gosh Michael, do you have to be in control all the time to the extent you can't even let someone else have a different opinion! Scary stuff.
I think that the USA are in fact to blame. They provide the money for Israel to go on the rampage, but then I guess we have to take responsiblity for our actions, so that means Israel is to blame too. Can we have some more debate with strong light please? I was enjoying that.
By
JazzyMaz, at 5:17 PM
The Israeli Government is responsible for the protection of it's citizens. It certainly would not allow a Zionist Terrorist group intent on wiping out Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, to attack it's neighbouring countries from within it's territories, so should expect the same from it's neighbours.
However, Lebanon tolerates Hizbollah launching attacks on Israel from within it's borders. So, therefore, Israel is justified in attacking Hizbollah targets within Lebanon.
If the Lebanese Government was actively trying to disarm Hizbollah, Israel would probably not attack. But they have sat on their hands and given the Israelis no alternative.
Can any of refute that arguement? No-one has even come close, yet!
Strong Light asked if there was 'a better way' but didn't provide any hints as to what it might be! And neither of you two who defended SL has either. All I'm hearing is, the "bombing is bad because people are being killed" - I never said it was good, and I wish the civilian casualties didn't occur.
I only said Israel is justified in attacking Hizbollah targets in Lebanon.
If you can't add to this discussion about the conflict in the Mid East - press 'Next Blog'.
I'm tired of having to explain why when I pay for this blog I can choose to be the Editor over the type of content. Personally, I feel like pulling the plug on this whole blog at the moment.
By
Michael, at 2:11 PM
Israel has no right to "bomb Lebanon" which is the resolution being questioned here. The only case we can even begin to make is that Israel has a right to be forceful and militaristic with Hizbollah. Let's use the analogy and make the Auckland correction. Terrorists based in Auckland use land in the city to lunch senseless rocket attacks on innocent Aussies.
Do we:
A) forcefully, painstakingly, with the support of the international community, systematically cut off, cripple and destroy the terrorist cell responsible for the attacks on Australian soil.
or
B) Launch senseless rocket attacks on innocnet Kiwis.
Quickly, we see that the question doesn't match the emotional response you're trying to get me to use in place of sense? Does Israel have a right to respond? Yes. Does Istrael have a right to "bomb lebanon". Not at all.
No sympathy here for a toddler-with a tantrum approach to foreign policy, even when you're as worn down by history as the Israelis.
By
Canadian with Correction, at 4:08 PM
Canadian - Only one problem with your theory.
How do you close a land border with Syria (who supports and supplies Hizbollah) and Lebanon when neither Government will co-operate? And how do you stop Iran from supplying Hizbollah via Syria?
Israel has shown great restraint in the past 15 years - even when Iraq bombed it without provocation in 1991, and has tried to deal with Terrorists to achieve peace.
What have they got for all that effort? Muslim Fundamentalists firing rockets at civilians right at it's border.
This is a problem of Lebanons making - if it was truly willing to co-exist with Israel then Hizbollah would have been disarmed by it's Government.
By
Michael, at 8:41 AM
Questions about border control and the flow of weapons in the Middle East are really important to ask, and I’ll bet they have answers. I’ll bet the answers aren’t pretty, and that they involve a lot of guns, de-militarized zones, the UN and a slow crawl toward stability, but at least a life of peace for Lebanese children.
By saying that the problem is of Lebanon’s making, you’re wading deep into some fundamental problems with the theory of making war. Who made the problems you attribute to the state as a whole? Look at the photos from Qana and tell me those people are responsible.
Lebanon is occupied. Hizbollah’s guerrilla style of warfare is not suffering any crippling blows because of these air raids, all they need to wage war is weapons (constantly replenished) and a couple square feet of earth (maybe Israel aims to destroy every patch of land?).
So what’s being destroyed here? The community buildings terrorists use to hide in, the bridges they use for transportation and the commutations systems they use to talk to each other.
And what of the everyday citizens, caught literally in the crossfire? Their families can’t use the phone system to call an ambulance to drive down the road to get their loved ones to a makeshift hospital, because none of those things exist anymore. Hizbollah moves to the next grassy knoll, and a nation mourns the loss of life, and later of economic viability.
So what’s being destroyed here? An entire generation’s future.
The frustrating thing is that it seems to some like Israel should be allowed to shoot somebody in retaliation, but the realities of the situation make it irresponsible to do so.
By
Canadian with..., at 4:19 PM
I take your point about Qana - it seems so senseless and unnecessary.
But I can't see how the UN is going to resolve this - everything else they get involved in ends up in a mess.
I also can't see Syria, Iran, Lebanon and Israel all agreeing to a UN zone surround each nation.
The only long-term solution here is for Hizbollah (and Hamas and other fundamentalist groups) to recognise Israel's right to exist and disarm - something they don't seem to want to do voluntarily. The moderate states in the region (Egypt, Jordan, Turkey) should pressure them, that would be more effective - however they are too scared to because of their internal politics.
Then we might see some progress in the region - like we have with Libya.
By
Michael, at 8:18 PM
Interesting that when we start to look at the problem in depth, “long term solutions” become apparent that could lead to effective steps toward progress.
Solutions that aren’t just “bombing Lebanon”.
I think you’re right about Middle Eastern nations’ internal politics making things complicated for would-be peacemakers and moderates. Doesn’t justify running off and playing with bombs though.
Good to see that you see that the “only long term solution” involves a will to coexist. Tell me how waging war encourages Hizbollah “to recognise Israel's right to exist and disarm.” It doesn’t really. Bush and Blair talk about war as a long term solution, but when the entire nation of Lebanon has been flattened, Hizbollah will set up its new missile launchers on top of the rubble.
A lasting stability would begin with the steps you described as being “more effective” and probably be augmented by an international military presence. Israel’s destruction of a nation doesn’t fit into that at all, does it?
By
Canadian with..., at 9:54 AM
(Is there any chance we could get strong light back in here Michael? Try a second reading of this blog and I think you may see that, though sarcastic, his/her points were valid and academic.)
You left yourself wide open for some criticism (ex with the last sentence of your post) and were throwing insults around yourself. Consider opening up this blog up again to comments from everyone, and review your editorial policy with more professionalism than the “it’s my blog” approach you’ve been limiting yourself to.
By
Canadian with..., at 10:13 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home