Thursday, July 20, 2006

There's Many Lost But Tell Me Who Has Won?

The World's focal point for the clash of civilizations...or, Islam's bloody borders continued..

Israel Hints at Full-Scale Lebanon Attack
By LEE KEATH , 07.20.2006, 06:36 PM

Pitched battles raged between Israeli forces and Hezbollah fighters on the border Thursday, and Israel warned hundreds of thousands of people to flee southern Lebanon "immediately," preparing for a likely ground offensive to set up a buffer zone.

U.N. chief Kofi Annan warned of a humanitarian crisis in Lebanon and called for an immediate cease-fire, even as he admitted "serious obstacles" stand in the way of even easing the violence. Annan denounced Israel for "excessive use of force" and Hezbollah for holding "an entire nation hostage" with its rocket attacks and snatching of two Israeli soldiers last week.

As the death toll rose to 330 in Lebanon as well as 31 Israelis, Lebanese streamed north into the capital and other regions, crowding into schools, relatives' homes or hotels. Taxi drivers in the south were charging up to $400 per person for rides to Beirut - more than 40 times the usual price. In remote villages of the south, cut off by strikes, residents made their way out over the mountains by foot.
This last bolded sentence is key: the death toll rose to 330 in Lebanon as well as 31 Israelis. I'm not trying to point out that the Israeli response is "disproportionate" based on figures.

I'm okay with an uneven body count if it's against a reprehensible foe, but...

Israel has killed and will continue to kill innocents in this war. Yes, I can hear my one reader mutter to herself:
...But Shamrocks!
a) Israel is targeting Hizbollah which hides in civilian areas
b) Hizbollah is targeting innocent Israelis
Fine, fictitious reader. You win, but what's the purpose here? Allow me to rant a bit. Yeah, Hamas and Hizbollah had a plan: Hamas to divert attention from Hamas' poor ass record of governing the territories; Hizbollah to hit Israel while pre-occupied, a la '67, yo. Hizbollah should go back and remember what happened to Syria and Jordan whilst Israel was doing Egypt in the nether regions (That's the Sinai, sicko). Yeah, Israel saw it coming from a mile away, like I saw the ending to the movie "Species" coming before I walked in the theatre-yeah, frick I saw the stupid movie at the theatre. Stupid blog confessions.

But so what? Israel is going to inevitably run into the ineffectual and probably weary Lebanese army in battle and then? Even if Israel can destroy every last bomb and Hizbollah member can it close the Syrian border? Can it cut off the supplies from Iran? Prevent the inevitable propaganda coup of Hizbollah's "survival" for recruiting purposes?

At least the international community and in particular the Arab league has come out against Hizbollah, but that's a fluke and a half. When Saudi Arabia disses Hizbollah, it's really dissing its regional and religious rival Iran. Still, I guess it's something.

Here's the other thing: in a war against an admittedly morally inferior opponent like Hizbollah, is it justified to so many innocents even as collateral damage, and is it equally as disturbing that Hizbollah will kill fewer citizens of Israel but only because of a lack of ability, not will? Is it a media win (Hizbollah has no legit land claim and compromises Lebanese sovereignty and security with its policies) that will allow Israel to spend weeks to erradicate the south of Hizbollah?

Anyways, a bit of a conversation at least touching on the moral issue of collateral damage is here....Funny how a "libertarian" blog so strongly endorses state and sectarian violence.

As usual, this gives us a chance to reflect on the idiocy of unthinking reactionaries from all over the politial spectrum:
I find pretty much all actions of politicians and political entities today, reprehensible.

[...]

I would like to see the justification for an individual to risk the lives of the next town because some members of that town kidnapped a few of my relatives.

Statism is always statism.
*sigh* Yep, all the careful consideration of a Sheryl Crow song title, ie "good is good". Libertarians make terrible neighbours. And even worse citizens of the world. This is the same guy who once said Ireland should join the Commonwealth and he defends Reverand Paisley. Whatever. I guess a tyranny, racism and colonialism come in handy for a libertarian sometimes. What happened to his over joyful July 12 posting?
--------------------------------------------------
Anyways, back to the main event: it's nice to consider Israel on the right side of the conflict, but Lebanon does have a sizable moderate population that wants to keep peace with its crazy and uncontrollable neighbours and any attempts to reignite a civil war are bound to fail. That moderate, prosperous, and internationalist community is going to be drawn into a conflict against Israel because of a basic need to defend their homeland, and attacking Christian neighbourhoods in Beirut won't help matters.

Israel is going to need a wedge to draw the moderate Shia, Druze and Christian communities away from the lure of nationalism that Hizbollah will prey upon and allow the anti-Hizbollah Lebanese an excuse to sit this one out.

3 comments:

Ian Scott said...

" This is the same guy who once said Ireland should join the Commonwealth and he endorses Reverand Paisley."

You're a Foolish liar. Not only that, you misrepresent what I wrote.

I have not "endorsed" Ian Paisley; I have however provided other information about him. I have also corrected false information that you published about him.

Ian Scott said...

Furthermore, in your rhetorical question about my "July 12th" post, you left out the fact that I had written there was some personal information that the person in question might be uncomfortable with being published - therefore it may not stay up.

I did not provide names for one of the subjects I was writing about therefore I believed that anonymouty was good enough.

Your misrepresentations are unbecoming to you, Patrick.

Shamrocks! said...

Ian:

Fine, "defends"--it's changed. How about that? Fine lines and all...

And bravo for providing "correct" information on him. I'm sure you have his life details etched into memory.