Proportionality in the Israeli-Lebonese conflict

Oluseye Bassir,

I'm not sure I agree with your argument that regarding Israel:

the more indiscriminate force it uses, the more the chances of peace are remote

The closest to real peace that we've seen in the region is that between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan. Both of those peace agreements were borne out of the 1967 war and not from the 1967 Peace Convention. While civilian casualties should be avoided if possible, proportional force and measured responses will only result in furthering the conflict for decades. This idea of will allow any terrorist organization to calculate what response they should expect to receive based on their planned terrorist attack. This will not help defeat terrorism or quell violence. It will just give the terrorists a good feeling that they can continue to attack Israel and will only received this calculated measured response.

But the global picture; peace within the region looks more remote everyday! Ok, some countries made peace with Israel, but if things deteriorate enough, even those peace accords would be unsustainable...i.e, if a major conflict between Israel and Arab nations ensue, Egypt could (read could, in some foreseeable scenarios) be forced to break its peace.

Israel itself has to be careful to use force proportionately.

So in other words, Israel should downgrade their weapons systems and not use all of their technology because otherwise things would not be "in proportion"? What is this, a high school debate? This is a war! In a war, each side uses its resources as well as it can. If things are out of proportion, great! The easier it is to achieve your objectives.

If things are out of proportion, great! The easier it is to achieve your objectives.

Hmm... and exactly what would these objectives be, Yaakov?

Hmm... and exactly what would these objectives be, Yaakov?

That's an easy one. To defeat and utterly destroy the terrorist orrganizations that seek the destruction of Israel, and who are currently attempting to further these goals by firing 50+ missiles/rockets a day from Lebanon at Northern Israeli cities and a smaller number from Gaza to Israeli cities in the South.

And before you jump to conclusions about who is to blame for large numbers of civilian death's resulting from Israel's actions. Take a a look at this. This is not an isolated incident.

To defeat and utterly destroy the terrorist orrganizations that seek the destruction of Israel

Do you think you are going to make it this time? What level of genocide is an acceptable cost for such a lofty goal?

What you present is just a photo, Yaakov.

Claus - The photo is representative of the way in which Hizballah and Hamas surround themselves and their weapons with the local civilian population, putting them at risk.

No level of genocide is acceptable in the current situation. (I say it that way because if I had to choose between Israel destroying Iran or Iran destroying Israel, I go for the former).

You might want to check the definition of words like that before throwing them around so hastily:

gen·o·cide (jĕn'ə-sīd') pronunciation
n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Or do you actually think that Israel is attempting to systematically exterminate every person in Lebanon?

All options are on the table, they say. I don't think it is out of the question that destruction of Lebanon could be the de facto result. Stranger things have happened in the course of history. You as a Jew should know this. Right now sentiments are so heated, and judging from your articles and seeds you belong to one of the most extreme factions making a vote in the conflict, only a few more casualties and retaliations from something far worse. I hope Israel, as well as the extremists on the other side of the front, regains their equilibrium, morally and intellectually. I would like to think that the chances of Israel doing so is far higher, but as of now I can only do what I feel is my duty and say: It is not the right way.

Right now sentiments are so heated, and judging from your articles and seeds you belong to one of the most extreme factions making a vote in the conflict

Judging from your recent articles, seeds and comments, I could say exactly the same thing about you. (Of course, one could posit that anyone who has an opinion on the matter belongs to one extreme faction or another by default).

You can say what you want, Yaakov. I can't recall when I have given any nation or power carte blanche to conduct violence, or argued in favor of a war that can be avoided. My position is generally balanced, and my default is not belonging to any faction. It seems to me that there is a group of people who are ready to lobby for war at any given opportunity and against any enemy entity. If not being so eager to drum for war makes me an extremist, the term has become inflated. You should comfort yourself that if anybody tries to call for arms against Israel, I would denounce them too.

I can't recall when I have given any nation or power carte blanche to conduct violence, or argued in favor of a war that can be avoided. My position is generally balanced, and my default is not belonging to any faction.

You may consider your position to be generally balanced and not belonging to any faction. However, when I read you casually saying that Israel is in the process of committing genocide, that right away puts you in certain company, the likes of which represent for me (and many others) an extreme position.

It seems to me that there is a group of people who are ready to lobby for war at any given opportunity and against any enemy entity.

I am sorry that I give you that impression (if you are indeed putting me in with this group). I do not lobby for war at any given opportunity and against anyone (if I have said so, please let me know where). All of my comments regarding the current crisis are made with the belief that when fighting an enemy that is committed to the destruction of Israel, with violence as their only tool, the only sure way to ultimate peace for Israel is to fight them back as hard as possible. This is very different than "lobbying for war at any given opportunity against any enemy entity".

You should comfort yourself that if anybody tries to call for arms against Israel, I would denounce them too.

I would have been comforted...however, I have seen you write an article on the current situation where Israel is painted as the bad guy vs. Hamas & Hizballah, Israel is depicted as the one responsible for launching the current conflicts and for avoiding talks, and nothing in the way of denouncing Hamas or Hizballah or those calling for arms against Israel can be seen. I know that these are matters of perspective, but after reading what you have written it really seems like you are presenting things in a very one-sided fashion.

Yaakov, just because I criticize the resolutions of Israel does not mean that I am anti-Semite or even anti-Zionist. I am anti-Zionist, meaning that I am in favor of a secular state, but so are a lot of Israeli and Jews around the world.

I have no problem with you linking (literally) me to Keld Bach. I don't understand the smear campaigns against him, and for what I know he is neither anti-Semitist nor a conspiracy nut. He is just very expressive in showing the side of the conflict that is underrated in mainstream media, and effectively trying to cover all angles regarding the 9/11 conspiracy or complicity theory. Lately I have noticed how people launching assaults on him self-destruct in public, and it is known to happen when people play unfair with Keld Bach. He is fairly famous in Denmark for taking down a team of scrupulous lawyers who tried to make a pilot case out of him as a blogger who conducted copyright infringement.

My article about the Palestinian Prisoners is crucial to the subject at hand, and a not too well covered subject. It does not paint Israel as the bad guy. In fact, the first half of it describe how Israel has honored promises to release prisoners, and quotes Mubarak for having said that Israel was about to release more, as events escalated. Just because I don't spin the story in favor of Zionist radicalism, you should not jump to conclusions about my motives.

but after reading what you have written it really seems like you are presenting things in a very one-sided fashion.

I take it you have not read this article Open letter to Iran, a case for Israel. Or was it just convenient to overlook this gesture? I can inform you that I have formally applied for an interview with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to address such issues. I have, as expected, not received an answer, but Tehran knows my home address.

Yaakov, just because I criticize the resolutions of Israel does not mean that I am anti-Semite or even anti-Zionist. I am anti-Zionist, meaning that I am in favor of a secular state, but so are a lot of Israeli and Jews around the world.

Now why did you have to go and bring anti-Semitism into this? Not everyone who is anti-Israel is anti-Semitic (yourself being a case in point).

I wasn't conducting a smear campaign above against Keld. I was just noting that your position in the article that I read seemed similar to his in that it seemed to be ignoring the actions of Hizballah/Hamas, focusing on Israel as the agressors.

I will go back and read your article on the Palestinian Prisoners, as well as the Open letter to Iran (which I had not seen before - I am not able to keep up with all of your articles...only so many hours in the day).

Claus, I'd like to refer you to an article you seeded:

Many people believe the war for Palestinian independence is a pretend war that functions only to give a liberational facade to the real war of annihilation; many others believe the war of annihilation is an Israeli propaganda invention that functions only to allow Israel to thwart the just demands of the Palestinians - an invocation of the Holocaust as a blank cheque.

The problem with social reality is that if enough people believe something to be true, and act as though it is indeed true, then it may become the truth. So if Israelis believe they are only ever fighting a war of survival, then they will use tactics and strategies that are proportionate to the war they believe themselves to be fighting. If Palestinians, meanwhile, come to believe that they can win their freedom only by destroying Israel, then they will think of the Jew-haters of Hamas, Hizbullah, al-Qaeda and the Syrian and Iranian regimes as their allies in the task.

The only way out is for cosmopolitan voices and political movements to insist on the reality of both wars - to separate them conceptually and to stand clearly for a Palestinian victory in the fight for freedom and equally clearly for an Israeli victory in the fight against annihilation.

ignoblus, I hate to argue ad absurdum, but as I have told a bunch of other newbies, and I can only assume that you are: Articles you seed are not necessarily the view of the columnist.

Of course not. On the other hand, people do have reasons for seeding things. I am fairly new to newsvine, but not with such issues. Poets don't necessarily write in their own voices, and yet it would be asburd to assume that their poems are not personal.

And I do think it would be great if everyone would "stand clearly for a Palestinian victory in the fight for freedom and equally clearly for an Israeli victory in the fight against annihilation" (emphasis added).

Latest NEWS.. Hizbollah still in full control. More rocket promised.

Israel is going for Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. If they manage to get him alive, they can bargain. Otherwise it is hard to see why Israel should have a week to "do the job", except for the fact that Bush still need some time for geography lessons to meet the contingencies of the situation.

A number of observers are commenting on the rise of Shia power in the region. It is nothing new, but if Lebanon is further destabilized and Hezbollah comes out victorious from the shoot-out, you have a whole new ball-game and potentially a new epicenter of power.