"Hezbollah's unprovoked terrorist attack" started this mess

[babylonsister]

in the ME? That's what dimson just said. Can someone enlighten me on the specifics?

[Kagemusha]

1. Hezbollah attacked Israeli troops, busted a tank, took 2 prisoner.

A military target.

Israel treated it as a terrorist attack across national borders and began punishing all of Lebanon, renouncing possible prisoner swap negotiations and basically waving a bloody shirt as much as possible. Because to Israel, killing troops is a worse terrorist act than killing civilians.

[mazzarro]

12. Simplistic dribble!

Why are people so prone to simplistic and imbecilic explanation of the Israeli/Arab crisis? What about the "targeted" assasinations, the brazen abductions and imprisonments without trials,the wantom purging of Arabs from and confiscations of lands without compensations, etc. Are those reasons enough to start shit like this? Maybe not but people get desperate - that I know for sure.
Yea all that Israel and US haave demonstrated is that 'absolute power makes right' and they can afford to ignore what is truly right and the rest of the fair minded world - period: maybe!

[Igel]

14. This makes sense only if there's an

on-going Arab-Israeli war such that any attack on Israel by any Arab group is justified (and, likewise, any Israeli attack on any Arab group or country), we ignore most of the recent history at that border, and the nature of Hezbollah within a Lebanese context and as defined by its on documents and spokesmen.

In other words ... if we accept a simplistic explanation.

[Kagemusha]

15. To clarify, hitting a military target isn't classical terrorism at all.

It may be an act of war, granted. But an act of terror is generally an act of violence against unarmed civilians, not uniformed soldiers.

Israel just has decided that killing and capturing soldiers is even worse. Partly because of the citizen soldier thing. Probably more because the IDF is seen as the heroic representative of the people... a concept I do not feel it is misplaced to call Prussian.

The WWI German Army thought those Belgians sniping at them were committing acts of terror too; under the laws of war, civilians taking up arms and sniping at an occupying army was indeed not legitimate. That's why they started lining up random civilians and shooting them on a 10 to 1 ratio. That's also why people like me don't think two wrongs make a right. An eye for an eye making the whole world blind and all that. There's a lot of blindness right now, that's for sure.

[papau]

17. Attacks on civilian Israeli population via missiles and sponsored "cells"

just might be part of what Israel is respomding too - eh?

[Greyhound]

22. and that might be a response to the father and son the the Israelis

kidnapped two days earlier. and that was a response to the blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum.

They're all murderous thugs imposing chaos on those unfortunate enough to live there.

[Kagemusha]

30. It'd have been more justified to bomb Damascus than Beirut.

That's a blunt fact.

[lastknowngood]

29. Yes but they were all inside Lebanon territory where Israel had

no business.

[DemforNagin]

2. Basically.....

What they did was tantamount to walking up to a bear's cave (Israel) with a cattle prod (plans to kidnap Israeli soldiers), meeting another guy coming out with an already smoking cattle prod (Palestinian militant who's already kidnapped Israeli soldier), hearing all of the roaring and commotion from that incident (bombing and such in Gaza), and proceeding into the cave anyway.

Poking the bear when he's already REALLY pissed off isn't the brightest thing one could do unless one purposely wants to start an international incident.


/2 cents

[LiberalPartisan]

3. Obviously Isreal's response was long in the planning

Afterall - they've been enduring 6 years of utterly unprovoked rocket attacks on their cities and the abductions of soldiers by both Hamas and Hezbollah. The coordinated simultaneous abduction of soldiers by Hamas and Hezbollah occured at a time when Israel was ready to eliminate both terrorist organizations, those who harbor and support them and the infrastructure used to facilitate that support. Israel's response is completely justified and long overdue.

[catmother]

4. i totally agree with you.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiberalPartisan]

25. All that is required to be a patriotic American

is to support and defend the Consitution of the United States.

My sig. pic emphasizes the traditional solidarity between the US and Israel.

Anything you read in to is is yours and yours alone.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. And the Maine blowing up...

started the Spanish-American War

And the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand started WWI

And so it goes... The real explanations are never so simplistic.

Like so many others, this was a war that was destined to happen if no one stepped in to stop it. Israel had been planning a showdown with Hezbollah for years and Hezbollah had been looking for some way to start a ruckus. It was only a matter of time.

The spark that started it was Hezbollah's attack and kidnapping, but that's not nearly the whole story. The continuing, and seemingly eternal, tensions bewtween Israel and some of its neighbors are the root of it all.

And there is no point in finger-pointing. After all these years, all sides have much to complain about and no side is blameless.

I suspect Dimson actually believes what he said, which is another reason why we're in so much trouble.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. No attack on Israel can ever be described as "unprovoked".

"Unjustified", certainly, but ignoring what Israel has been doing to it's neighbours for the last 40-odd years is just silly.

[cali]

7. Attacks

on civilians, attacks on children, such as the attack by Samir Kunar, are not only unjustified they are indeed unprovoked. Your argument has validity if you are talking about military targets, none if you are talking about civilians.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. Yes, I see your point.

If you provoke me, and I then go and hit somebody else to get at you, then it's arguably accurate to describe my attack as "an unprovoked attack on them", even though I was provoked, so I'm probably wrong.

[baldguy]

8. Imagine you're Israel.

Someone knocked over your garbage late last night. In response, you shoot your neighbors dog. In front of his 10-yr old daughter. Then set fire to his house.

You "justify" it bay saying he's a terrorist.

[babylonsister]

9. I can't justify any of this, especially anything dimson says. nt

[CTyankee]

13. not a good analogy

Hezbollah deliberately placed its offensive missiles in civilian areas, precisely because it makes it difficult for Israel to defend itself against rockets without killing innocent civilians. But Hezbollah did that to its own people, not Israel.

[baldguy]

24. Assigning blame in the current situation won't lead to a path to peace.

If you're looking to blame someone for the violence, its the people who commit violent acts. Hezbollah fired the missiles. In response, Israel kills many people who aren't in Hezbollah. Both these acts are crimes. If you're looking to punish the criminals, punish ALL the criminals.

Its a very familiar plot: Israel is attacked, they respond, which provokes another attack, which provokes a response, which provokes another attack, etc etc. Change "Israel" to "Hamas" or "Hezbollah" or "Palestine" and it's the same story. They've all been using the same playbook for 40 yrs. If they continue to behave this way, do you think the outcome will be different?

There isn't a way to peace using violence - Peace is the way. Justice isn't an adjective, its a verb. And you don't create justice by doing unjust things - like killing non-combatant children.

[CTyankee]

27. I want to believe that "peace is the way" as I was an antiwar activist

in the 60s. However, I am plainly concerned about the survival of Israel. I believe they took out the Hezbollah rockets because of a need to survive. Hezbollah deliberately hid them in civilian areas and that meant death to civilians. That is culpable, in my book.

With Israel, you have a small, democratic country surrounded by enemies who wish only to destroy it utterly. If you were in charge in Israel, what would you do?

If you got your way and Israel ended up destroyed and Hezbollah and Hamas triumphant, would you feel happy?

[baldguy]

32. Creating reasons Israel's enemies to attack doesn't bring security.

Every dead Arab child does exactly that. The people who would murder Israel are those who have had loved ones murdered by Israel.

The only way to stop the murders is to stop murdering. Doing anything else just perpetuates the cycle of violence.

By committing even more murders, Israel is creating more enemies and putting itself in further jeopardy. The only way to win at this game is not to play.

[AusGail]

36. You forgot to mention that Lebanon and Palestine are also democratic

countries, or at least have democratically elected governments.

[DemforNagin]

31. Now that's a patently ridiculous analogy... nt

[AusGail]

35. Excellent analogy

[Sensitivity]

10. Though "Terrorist Attack" would be against un-armed civilians?

Not againts armored unit sneeking accross the border on "black ops."
I guess defintitions can be changed to suit the circustances.

[KitSileya]

26. But isn't the attack on the Pentagon considered a terrorist attack?

That was an attack on a military installation, but it's still considered a terrorist attack. Hizbollah attacked Israeli military, and now Israel is doing the exact same thing as the US did when it attacked Afghanistan, that is, attacked one of the countries that harbored the perpetrators. The only difference is that the government of Afghanistan supported the terrorists, but the Lebanese government things aren't that clear cut.

As for whether to condemn the Israeli reaction or not - I would have thought Israel would have learned from the US failure to destroy Al Qaeda. You don't destroy a terrorist organization by bombing the country in which it resides - that just creates more terrorists.

Unprovoked or not, I think Isreal's reaction was ill-advised.

[flpoljunkie]

16. Your questions answered by Tel Aviv University professor Tanya Reinhart...

http://www.counterpunch.org/reinhart07272006.html

Burning Lebanon

Israel's New Middle East

By TANYA REINHART

Tel Aviv

Beirut is burning, hundreds of Lebanese die, hundreds of thousands lose all they ever owned and become refugees, and all the world is doing is rescuing the "foreign passport" residents of what was just two weeks ago "the Paris of the Middle East". Lebanon must die now, because "Israel has the right to defend itself", so goes the U.S. mantra, used to block any international attempt to impose a cease fire. Israel, backed by the U.S., portrays its war on Lebanon as a war of self defense. It is easy to sell this message to mainstream media, because the residents of the North of Israel are also in shelters, bombarded and endangered. Israel's claim that no country would let such an attack on its residents unanswered, finds many sympathetic ears. But let us reconstruct exactly how it all started.

On Wednesday, July 12, a Hezbollah unit attacked two armored Jeeps of the Israeli army, patrolling along Israel's border with Lebanon. Three Israeli soldiers were killed in the attack and two were taken hostage. In a news conference held in Beirut a couple of hours later, Hezbollah's leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah explained that their aim was to reach a prisoner exchange, where in return for the two captured Israeli soldiers, Israel would return three Lebanese prisoners it had refused to release in a previous prisoner exchange. Nasrallah declared that "he did not want to drag the region into war", but added that "our current restraint is not due to weakness ... if they choose to confront us, they must be prepared for surprises."

The Israeli government, however, did not give a single moment for diplomacy, negotiations, or even cool reflection over the situation. In a cabinet meeting that same day, it authorized a massive offensive on Lebanon. As Ha'aretz reported, "In a sharp departure from Israel's response to previous Hezbollah attacks, the cabinet session unanimously agreed that the Lebanese government should be held responsible for yesterday's events." Olmert declared: "This morning's events are not a terror attack, but the act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel for no reason and without provocation." He added that "the Lebanese government, of which Hezbollah is a part, is trying to undermine regional stability. Lebanon is responsible, and Lebanon will bear the consequences of its actions."

At the cabinet meeting, "the IDF recommended various operations aimed at the Lebanese government and strategic targets in Lebanon", as well as a comprehensive attack on southern Lebanon (where Hezbollah's batteries of rockets are concentrated). The government immediately approved both recommendatons. The spirit of the cabinet's decision was succinctly summarized by Defense Minister Amir Perertz who said: "We're skipping the stage of threats and going straight to action."

<>It was at that point, early on Wednesday night, following the first Israeli attack, that Hezbollah started its rocket attack on the north of Israel. Later the same night (before the dawn of Thursday), Israel launched its first attack on Beirut, when Israeli warplanes bombed Beirut's international airport and killed at least 27 Lebanese civilians in a series of rai! ds. In response, Hezbollah's rocket attacks intensified on Thursday, w hen "more than 100 Katyusha rockets were fired into Israel from Lebanon in the largest attack of its sort since the start of the Lebanon War in 1982". Two Israeli civilians were killed in this attack, and 132 were taken to the hospital. When Israel started destroying the Shiite quarters of Beirut the following day, including a failed attempt on Nasrallah's life, Hezbollah extended its rockets attacks to Haifa.

much more..well worth reading in its entirety and bookmarking

[AtomicKitten]

18. the framing of this by the media is screamingly biased

but photos of the casualties speak a thousand words.

They cannot rationalize the carnage as hard as they try.

[ProSense]

19. BBC day-to-day reports on Mideast

Today
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5194156.stm

Since day one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5179434.stm


Oh, Bush is an idiot: he also says this presents an opportunity!

[Zhade]

21. Specifics? b*s* is idiotic, as is that argument.

Yes, Hezbollah abducted two soldiers, killed eight. It may or may not have been in Israel or inside Lebanon.

Before this, Israel kidnapped two more of thousands of Palestinians held without trial, bail, or any rights whatsoever. Before that, the Israeli military shelled a beach in Gaza, killing a family on a picnic.

Before that, Hezbollah...

...and before that Israel...

...and before that Hamas...

...and before that Israel...

...and before that...

It's turtles all the way down. Angry, violent, both-sides-wronged turtles.

[babylonsister]

23. Those were the opening words of dimson's Saturday address

today. I was too traumatized to listen to the rest.

But here tis:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206207,00.html

This week the international community continued to build a political and security framework to confront the crisis in the Middle East, a crisis that began with Hezbollah's unprovoked terrorist attacks on Israel.

Secretary of State Rice traveled to Lebanon, Israel, and Europe, and met with key leaders to discuss a way forward. In Rome, she met with representatives of more than a dozen nations and international organizations.

Our governments agreed to provide relief to the people of Lebanon, using corridors for humanitarian aid that Israel is opening. We pledged to support Lebanon's revival and reconstruction. And we agreed to continue to work for a sustainable cease-fire that will stop the current violence, end the suffering of people in Lebanon and Israel, and move us toward a lasting peace.

more blah blah blah...

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. This from Professor Tanya Reihart of Tel Aviv Universtiy

Israel's "new Middle East" by Tanya Reinhart

link:

http://www.nimn.org/articles/whats_new/000547.php

"The way it started, there was nothing in Hezbollah's military act, whatever one may think of it, to justify Israel's massive disproportionate response. Lebanon has had a long-standing border dispute with Israel: In 2000, when Israel, under Prime Minister Ehud Barak, withdrew from Southern Lebanon, Israel kept a small piece of land known as the Shaba farms (near Mount Dov), which it claims belonged historically to Syria and not to Lebanon, though both Syria and Lebanon deny that. The Lebanese government has frequently appealed to the U.S. and others for Israel's withdrawal also from this land, which has remained the center of friction in Southern Lebanon, in order to ease the tension in the area and to help the Lebanese internal negotiations over implementing UN resolutions. The most recent such appeal was in mid-April 2006, in a Washington meeting between Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and George Bush. (6) In the six years since Israel withdrew, there have been frequent border incidents between Hezbollah and the Israeli army, and cease-fire violations of the type committed now by Hezbollah, have occurred before, initiated by either side, and more frequently by Israel. None of the previous incidents resulted in Katyusha shelling of the north of Israel, which has enjoyed full calm since Israel's withdrawal. It was possible for Israel to handle this incident as all its predecessors, with at most a local retaliation, or a prisoner exchange, or even better, with an attempt to solve this border dispute once and for all. Instead, Israel opted for a global war. As Peretz put it: "The goal is for this incident to end with Hezbollah so badly beaten that not a man in it does not regret having launched this incident ." (7)

The Israeli government knew right from the start that launching its offensive would expose the north of Israel to heavy Katyusha rockets attacks. This was openly discussed at this first government's meeting on Wednesday: "Hezbollah is likely to respond to the Israeli attacks with massive rocket launches at Israel, and in that case, the IDF might move ground forces into Lebanon". (8) One cannot avoid the conclusion that for the Israeli army and government, endangering the lives of residents of northern Israel was a price worth paying in order to justify the planned ground offensive. They started preparing Israelis on that same Wednesday for what may be ahead: "'We may be facing a completely different reality, in which hundreds of thousands of Israelis will, for a short time, find themselves in danger from Hezbollah's rockets', said a senior defense official. 'These include residents of the center of the country.'" (9) For the Israeli military leadership, not only the Lebanese and the Palestinians, but also the Israelis are just pawns in some big military vision.

The speed at which everything happened (along with many other pieces of information) indicates that Israel has been waiting for a long time for 'the international conditions to ripen' for the massive war on Lebanon it has been planning. In fact, one does not need to speculate on this, since right from the start, Israeli and U.S. official sources have been pretty open in this regard. As a Senior Israeli official explained to the Washington Post on July 16, "Hezbollah's cross-border raid has provided a 'unique moment' with a 'convergence of interests'." (10) The paper goes on to explain what this convergence of interests is:

But Israel is not sacrificing its soldiers and citizens only to please the Bush administration. The "new Middle East" has been a dream of the Israeli ruling military circles since at least 1982, when Sharon led the country to the first Lebanon war with precisely this declared goal. Hezbollah's leaders have argued for years that its real long-term role is to protect Lebanon, whose army is too weak to do this. They have said that Israel has never given up its aspirations for Lebanon and that the only reason it pulled out of Southern Lebanon in 2000 is because Hezbollah's resistance has made maintaining the occupation too costly. Lebanon's people know what every Israeli old enough to remember knows—that in the vision of Ben Gurion, Israel's founding leader, Israel's border should be "natural," that is—the Jordan river in the East, and the Litani river of Lebanon in the north. In 1967, Israel gained control over the Jordan river, in the occupied Palestinian land, but all its attempts to establish the Litani border have failed so far. "

read full article:

Israel's "new Middle East" by Tanya Reinhart

link:

http://www.nimn.org/articles/whats_new/000547.php

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. Nasrallah Talks With Former Ambassador: watch, listen or read transcript

on Democracy Now- This interview took place in February this year. "Edward Peck. Former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania. He served as deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan Administration. "

link: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/28/1440244

"The US government considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization, but several former former US diplomats sat down with the group’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in Lebanon earlier this year. In a US national exclusive, we play excerpts of the interview, and speak to former US Ambassador and White House Terrorism Task Force Director Edward Peck, who took part in the meeting.

Sheik Hassan Nasrallah is the leader of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. Although the United States considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization, three former U.S. diplomats had a chance to meet with Nasrallah this past February in Lebanon. The diplomats were members of a delegation organized by the Council for the National Interest.
During the meeting, Nasrallah discussed Hezbollah’s strategy to free Lebanese prisoners being held in Israel. He also spoke about the origins of Hezbollah, and recounted an event that is back in the news this week—Israel’s bombing of a UN observation post in the southern Lebanese town of Qana in 1996 which killed 106 Lebanese refugees.
One of the retired diplomats who met with Nasrallah in February was Edward Peck - he joins us from our Washington studio. Edward Peck is the former U.S. chief of mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania. He served as the deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan administration."

link to watch/listen or read transpcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/28/1440244