Can someone explain to me the difference between Hezbollah firing

[beaconess]

rockets into Israel unprovoked and our invading Iraq?

I'm not trying to be funny or glib. I really am trying to figure out if there is any moral distinction between the two circumstances and would appreciate your views.

Thanks.

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. Hezbollah's an ethnic militia that should have disarmed

Would we tolerate a GOP army?

[azurnoir]

7. I thought we kinda have been n/t

[atreides1]

10. True

But if Israel was allowed almost 2 decades to adhere to UN Resolution 425


First Israeli invasion and occupation

After numerous cross-border attacks by Palestinian groups in southern Lebanon against civilians in Israeli territory, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) invaded on March 14, 1978 in what was titled the Litani River Operation. A few days later, the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions 425 and 426, calling for the withdrawal of Israeli forces, removal of the militant Palestinian forces, and establishing an international peace-keeping force in southern Lebanon, the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL). In 1978 Israel completed the withdrawal of its troops, and turned over control of southern Lebanon to the pro-Israel South Lebanon Army of mostly Christian locals. Pro-Palestinian forces remained in the region in violation of the UN cease fire agreement.

Second Israeli invasion and occupation

The armed forces of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) continued to use Lebanon as a base to attack Israel with rockets and artillery, and with cross-border attacks aimed at Israeli civilians. On June 6, 1982 Israel again invaded Lebanon with the objective of evicting the PLO. Israeli forces occupied Ezzat areas from the southern Lebanese border with Israel northward into areas of Beirut. Israel's plans for Lebanon suffered a severe setback on September 14, 1982, with the assassination of the Phalangist leader and President-elect Bachir Gemayel, who was regarded as secretly sympathetic to Israel. In the days following, the Phalangist militia, under the command of Elie Hobeika, moved into the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, and committed the first Sabra and Shatila massacre. Then Israeli Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon was later found indirectly responsible for not preventing the massacre by the Kahan Commission. Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shia Islamic military and political group, formed from 1982 to combat the Israeli occupation. Also in 1983 the militants killed 241 service men and women from the U.S. Marine Corps in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.

Israel withdrew from the "security zone" in the spring of 2000, under the Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who formerly ruled over the security zone as Chief of Staff. Israel continues to control a small area called Shebaa Farms, which Lebanon and Syria claim to be Lebanese territory but Israel insists to be former Syrian territory with the same status as the Golan Heights. The United Nations has determined that Shebaa Farms is not part of Lebanon. The UN Secretary-General concluded that, as of 16 June 2000, Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon Ezzat in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 425 of 1978, bringing, in the UN's opinion, closure to the 1982 invasion.

Despite common belief, there has been no formal declaration of war between Lebanon and Israel throughout the past conflicts, although on 13 July 2006 officials in both countries called recent engagements "act of war." The two countries do not maintain any open ties and rely on third parties to be intermediaries in any disputes.


Why should Hezbollah have to be on a time schedule?

Who do you think controls the US military now? The Socialists? While it's true that not everyone in the US military is a registered Republican, how many do you think will question the orders of the White House if martial law is ever declared? Look at Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Hamandia, Mamudiyah, it would seem that these troops didn't question orders. And we don't know how deep the rot has gotten,
we know how far up it's reached, all the way to the White House.

So yes, at this point in time the GOP does have an army, navy, marine corps, and air force, and no I don't feel all that comfortable!!!!!

[Fredda Weinberg]

11. Agreed and until the recent escalation, Hezbollah was

tolerated. So, did they act to distract us from Iran? I'd say if so, it worked well.

[Robbien]

2. Since the Israel war on Lebanon was okayed by Bush/Blair prior

to the soldiers being kidnapped, I question the "unprovoked" part of your question.

[Oversea Visitor]

6. It is the rocket the rocket

not about the kidnapped soldiers.

See they forget so fast :rofl:

Hear what you want hear see what you want to see talk what you want to talk

But in the end REALITY IS A BITCH

See sometime real is happening there

All these talk point to defend one stand make no different to reality there

And that reality is going to create another reality

Isreal need to live in the new reality

Or they can wait for some real cuckoo to try their hand at WMD.

Walking down this road damn stupid

No point winning battle so war can go on.

[wuushew]

3. we don't border Iraq

nor were any of our soldiers or civilians subject to violent incidents fabricated or otherwise.

Israel/Hezbollah violence seems to extant based on actual events, interwoven into never ending cycles of payback.


How was that true of the Iraqi invasion?

[ThomCat]

4. Hezbollah wasn't unprovoked.

and our army isn't useless, so we don't have a legitimate need for a milia. The people of Lebanon do.

[The Deacon]

5. A Serious Reply:

The rockets Hezbollah is firing are innately inaccurate. This makes their use indiscriminate (they same thing we are all claiming about the Israeli bombing.) The Geneva Conventions explicitly forbids the use of indiscriminate weapons - the same reason many of us try to petition the US Government not to use or sell cluster munitions or land mines.
This, of course, doesn't address the question of provocation - simply my own personal disgust with any deliberate targeting of civilians.
(Addendum: this also covers napalm & any other weapon with "a substantial risk of harm to civilians or persons not directly targeted.")

[Karmakaze]

13. Not true...

They are like any kind of artillery - fairly accurate depending on range. The closer the target, the more accurate the shot. This is in fact true of rifle bullets too - the further you attempt to fire a weapon the less accurate it will be.

So declaring rocket artillery to be illegal will mean all artillery is illegal. Israel has fired a hell of a lot more artillery shells into Lebanon than Hizbullah has fired rockets into Israel.

[The Deacon]

15. I Wasn't Referring To All Rockets

I was referring to the particular missiles Hezbollah uses - Katyushas (like Scuds) - which are well known for their inaccuracy. These should not be confused with rocket artillery which is something else all together. These weapons were originally developed to deliver chemical or nuclear weapons - hence they have no guidance system and no real attention paid to their accuracy (plus they were designed immediately postwar when little was understood about rocketry.) There is no way anyone can consider a weapon with a "best case scenario" Circular Error Probability of 525 meters to be anything other than "indiscriminate."
Disgust for indiscriminate weapons and methods isn't about taking sides - other than the side of humanity. I am appalled by the lack of due regard for civilian causualties on both sides. I was attempting to respond to a question relating the U.S. invasion of Iraq to Hezbollah - and pointing out that, for all our other sins, at least we didn't use inherently inaccurate weapons (though there are rumors that cluster munitions & napalm may have been used on the first day of the war.)

[Karmakaze]

19. Not so...

Katyushas were and are rocket artillery designed to rain down fire on enemy troops. They were used in the second world war by the Soviets (the Germans called them the Stalin Organ) and were not designed to carry nuclear weapons, and the majority were not capable of chemical weapons either. However, they have been modernised over the years giving longer range and greater accuracy.

NO rocket artillery has guidance systems. If they did, they would be called MISSILES rather than rockets. The US and Israeli armies use rocket artillery too in a system called MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) which is basically a more modern copy of the Katyusha.

I would like to see where you got your CEP info from, considering very little is known about the Iranian made rockets used by Hizbullah.

As for the US not using inherently inaccurate weapons, this is also not true, depending on your definition of "inherently inaccurate" for example a laser guided bomb that supposedly has a CEP of 6 meters seems to be very accurate, until you factor in failures. Then that CEP blooms substantially. On top of that factor in misidentified targets and you will see that talk of CEP is really moot.

If Hizbullah really were trying for mass casualties, they would get 5 multi barreled launchers (they have some that have 12 rockets per vehicle) and would launch the entire battery simultaneously at one town, raining down 60 rockets in a matter of seconds. That is what Katyusha's were designed for, and in that role they are extremely effective.

The only reason they do not, as far as I can see is that they are not trying for mass casualties, but a steady harrassment fire.

[On the Road]

8. The Moral Distinction

Has to do with the history in which Israel has invaded and occupied lands that are not theirs. (Of course, they were attacked also, and there is a history to that, too.) Hezbollah sees themselves as being allied with the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

They also see themselves as representatives of Palestinians driven out of Israel into Southern Lebanon. Initially, those refugees resisted in similar ways under the auspices of the PLO. That has stopped since the Israeli invasion in the 80s, the formation of the quasi-government in the West Bank and Gaza, and other events. Hezbollah sees themselves as representatives of that continuing struggle.

Since Hezbollah is by and large composed of non-Palestinians from other areas, you may not see it as legitimate for them to claim that, but that's their rationale.

Even in the present, the Hezbollah rocket attacks do not exist by themselves, but as part of a back-and-forth struggle in which illegitimate tactics are used by both sides. Israel has killed many civilians, kidnapped most of the West Bank government, and is continuing to practice less direct forms of oppression like land confiscation and economic strangulation. Which is more legitimate depends on how you evaluate the history and politics.

You have to include both sides of the struggle when thinking about it -- otherwise, it just appears that one side is lashing out unprovoked. And in those terms, I think there is a night-and-day difference from the invasion of Iraq.

[beaconess]

17. Thanks for the thoughtful response

[BillZBubb]

9. You really think Hezbollah was "unprovoked?"

If so, I don't think any comment is necessary.

[Karmakaze]

12. See this is the problem - Israel supporter always have to add...

something that destroys their own case.

Unprovoked? Nothing Hizbullah has done since the first Israeli invasion has been unprovoked. For example when Israel pulled out of Lebanon, within 24 hours they were flying Israeli jets over Beirut at the speed of sound, making sonic booms. They have been doing this continually since then.

That is just ONE provocation. Recently Israeli troops fired across the border killing a teenage shepard, presumably because he strayed too close to the border itself.

This is an ongoing battle that heated up, not a delayed response to years of Hizbullah carrying out attacks "unprovoked".

Actually, this situtation is indeed very similar to Iraq with Israel in the role of the US. First there was a war, then a fake peace with constant violation by both sides, then a new war but with devestating consequences to innocent lives.

[beaconess]

16. What makes you think I'm an Israel supporter?

I had no "case" - I asked a simple question in order to help formulate my opinion about something.

In fact, I feel very strongly that Israel is completely out of line and that our government's sanctioning of everything they do is wrong.

Moreover, it seems to me that anyone who claims that Hezbollah was wrong to hit Israel should consider that we, too, have engaged in the kind of - in fact worse - action that they're condemning. Even if it can be assumed that Hezbollah's attack on Israel was unprovoked (and it appears that it was not), we also attacked a country without provocation. It is grossly hyporitical for us to criticize Hezbollah for its actions when it seems to me that we did the same thing to Iraq - only with bigger bombs and more consequences. I asked the question because, although the comparison seemed so obvious to me, I saw no one else raise the issue so I thought there might be a sticking point.

So before you decide what and whom I support or don't support, perhaps you should just ask me.

[Karmakaze]

20. The fact that you add in an unproven assertion made by the Israelis?

A simple question would be based on what really happened:

"Can someone explain to me the difference between Hezbollah invading Israel and capturing IDF troops and our invading Iraq?"

The rockets didnt come until AFTER Israel began bombing the hell out of Lebanon. Seriosuly, haven't you wondered why NOW all these Israelis are hunkered down in bunkers or leaving the north, when they werent before? The simple answer is there were no (well to be truthful very few) rockets before.

In the six months from July last year to January this year a grand total of 6 rockets were fired at Israel, none of which killed any Israelis, and they were aimed at the border towns occupied by IDF forces. No one can say for sure what they were targeting, but throughout the "peace" both sides have been targeting each others military forces - including the attack that resulted in two captured Israeli soldiers that was the Israeli reason for this current campaign.

During that 6 months Hizbullah launched a ground attack into a town called Ghajar. That town had an IDF base on its outskirts, and an IDF position within the town itself. Both of these positions were attacked, and in the process 1 Israeli civilian was wounded.

This is the truth of what was going on - Hizbullah was targeting IDF forces not civilians, but I gaurantee that when the Israeli government talked about this attack with the press they "forgot" to mention the IDF positions within and around the town.

Here is the source for all this information:
Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (For the period from 22 July 2005 to 20 January 2006)

[izzybeans]

14. I'm not sure Iraq ever occupied our sovereign territory. But I'll check

google. Maybe it will have the answers.

[baldguy]

18. We're Israel's playbook in the "WAR ON TERROR"

Hasn't worked for Israel for the last 40 yrs, why should it work in Iraq?