B
bizorky
Guest
^And a policy that makes absolutely no distinction between those who may support Hezbollah, and those who most definitely don't. As such, the policy is a failure.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
What I don't like about how this "war on terrorism" is how innocent citizens of those countries are treated as almost expendable. In both cases I see so much focus on the lives "we" lost (US and Israel) but not much talk about innocent civilians lost on the other side. It is sad that emotional response often seems to require citizenship. I wish that all the reports that show a loss of our citizens would also show some information about a non-citizen family or person that was a innocent civilian who lost their life to balance the view. I'm completely supportive of the idea of disarming the criminals but I think the fact that US and Isreal can somehow differentiate between lives of innocent Iraqi and Lebanese civillian deaths and the American and Isreali ones they are fighting to protect is a bit of a problem. I don't know how you can build a foundation for peace after sending a message that these people are second class citizens of the world compared to the ones the US and Isreal is trying to protect.
It also bothers me that both countries don't seem to believe there is any place for the UN in these conflicts. How can the outcome of an international crisis which is not the result of a UN decision or the decision of an international body ever be seen as an unbiased and fair decision?
Then you have Harper questioning why the UN was at its base in all of this. I sort of wonder if Israel bombed the Canadian Embassy it Harper would wonder what the ambassador was doing there? The UN's mission in Lebanon was to observe and relay back an unbiased view of what is going on there because there has been a long history of tension in the area. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the tension hasn't fully gone away yet. I think in most conflicts the UN tends to hold its base rather than cut and run because that is their job. The Red Cross and the UN are usually the ones trying to prevent innocent people from dying of starvation and lack of medical care. A UN compound in an area where food and water are in short supply might be useful for aid distribution. Maybe ex-General Romeo Dallaire should go tell Harper whether there is any point for the UN to at very minimum observe in a crisis like this. In the middle of all this does Harper see no reason for a less biased "observation" as if there is nothing going on? In death the last message on the situation on the ground in southern Lebanon seems quite clear... "inacurate and possibly indescriminate bombing".
Inacccurate targeting is occurring and civilians on both sides of the border are suffering but Israel does show precision guided missles on TV and claims that precision exists while everyone knows Hezbollah is fighting back with less advanced rockets which probably have little precision at all because they don't have access to precision guided weapons.
Then Rice and MacKay are talking about the need for a sustainable peace. I think the point of peace is to save lives isn't it? Surely peace isn't just about quieting the border and has more to do with people living in peace rather than lying dead in peace. Nuking the whole middle east including Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc might cause a long lasting peace but I'm guessing a peace like that which exists on the moon isn't the goal. How certain are these people in support of bombing southern Lebanon that this is going to create peace and that there wasn't another avenue? I don't see a master plan to create peace here, I see an agressive response to the deaths and kidnapping of some soldiers. Unless the rebuilding afterwards sees everything made significantly better than before the war I seriously doubt the peace will be long lasting. I have to wonder if the world had played a more visible role in improving life for people in southern Lebanon, West Bank, and Gaza whether Hamas and Hezbollah would have been able to get local support. When Israel hits all those bridges, apartment buildings, and airports is it really their plan to help pay for the rebuilding of all those things?
Lastly, a measured response in my opinion is an equal one. When dealing with criminals and gangs on their own soil countries would use teams with a large number of ground units to storm a location and avoid civillian casualties as much as possible. Why, when going across borders to get criminals or terrorists, is it right to throw away all the tactics that would be used on homesoil in favour of bombs and shelling? Why do citizens like John Walker Lindh quickly see a court, real charges laid, and get sentenced while non-citizens can stay in limbo for all eternity?
It also bothers me that both countries don't seem to believe there is any place for the UN in these conflicts. How can the outcome of an international crisis which is not the result of a UN decision or the decision of an international body ever be seen as an unbiased and fair decision?
Then you have Harper questioning why the UN was at its base in all of this. I sort of wonder if Israel bombed the Canadian Embassy it Harper would wonder what the ambassador was doing there? The UN's mission in Lebanon was to observe and relay back an unbiased view of what is going on there because there has been a long history of tension in the area. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the tension hasn't fully gone away yet. I think in most conflicts the UN tends to hold its base rather than cut and run because that is their job. The Red Cross and the UN are usually the ones trying to prevent innocent people from dying of starvation and lack of medical care. A UN compound in an area where food and water are in short supply might be useful for aid distribution. Maybe ex-General Romeo Dallaire should go tell Harper whether there is any point for the UN to at very minimum observe in a crisis like this. In the middle of all this does Harper see no reason for a less biased "observation" as if there is nothing going on? In death the last message on the situation on the ground in southern Lebanon seems quite clear... "inacurate and possibly indescriminate bombing".
Inacccurate targeting is occurring and civilians on both sides of the border are suffering but Israel does show precision guided missles on TV and claims that precision exists while everyone knows Hezbollah is fighting back with less advanced rockets which probably have little precision at all because they don't have access to precision guided weapons.
Then Rice and MacKay are talking about the need for a sustainable peace. I think the point of peace is to save lives isn't it? Surely peace isn't just about quieting the border and has more to do with people living in peace rather than lying dead in peace. Nuking the whole middle east including Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc might cause a long lasting peace but I'm guessing a peace like that which exists on the moon isn't the goal. How certain are these people in support of bombing southern Lebanon that this is going to create peace and that there wasn't another avenue? I don't see a master plan to create peace here, I see an agressive response to the deaths and kidnapping of some soldiers. Unless the rebuilding afterwards sees everything made significantly better than before the war I seriously doubt the peace will be long lasting. I have to wonder if the world had played a more visible role in improving life for people in southern Lebanon, West Bank, and Gaza whether Hamas and Hezbollah would have been able to get local support. When Israel hits all those bridges, apartment buildings, and airports is it really their plan to help pay for the rebuilding of all those things?
Lastly, a measured response in my opinion is an equal one. When dealing with criminals and gangs on their own soil countries would use teams with a large number of ground units to storm a location and avoid civillian casualties as much as possible. Why, when going across borders to get criminals or terrorists, is it right to throw away all the tactics that would be used on homesoil in favour of bombs and shelling? Why do citizens like John Walker Lindh quickly see a court, real charges laid, and get sentenced while non-citizens can stay in limbo for all eternity?
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
Enviro:
You've got that right. Watching Rice et al. (the US-UK-Canada bloc) on the issue of having "sustainable peace" as a precondition to a ceasefire makes me wince. It's almost like saying - let a few more civilians die first, then we'd see whether it is an appropriate time to lay down the arms. If that's not evil, I don't know what is.
Perhaps it's time for a little Solomonic wisdom - stop this nonsense now, both of you, or we'd turn the entire region into a Sea of Glass via nuclear fire, such that there'd be absolutely NO point of contesting territory or hearts, now or ever.
AoD
You've got that right. Watching Rice et al. (the US-UK-Canada bloc) on the issue of having "sustainable peace" as a precondition to a ceasefire makes me wince. It's almost like saying - let a few more civilians die first, then we'd see whether it is an appropriate time to lay down the arms. If that's not evil, I don't know what is.
Perhaps it's time for a little Solomonic wisdom - stop this nonsense now, both of you, or we'd turn the entire region into a Sea of Glass via nuclear fire, such that there'd be absolutely NO point of contesting territory or hearts, now or ever.
AoD
A
allabootmatt
Guest
On the UN observers, things were not quite what they may seem. See below, from the Citizen:
Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield': Canadian wrote of militia's presence, 'necessity' of bombing
Joel Kom, with files from Steven Edwards, CanWest News Service, The Ottawa Citizen
The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.
Those words, written in an e-mail dated just nine days ago, offer a possible explanation as to why the post -- which according to UN officials was clearly marked and known to Israeli forces -- was hit by Israel on Tuesday night, said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie yesterday.
The strike hit the UN observation post in the southern Lebanese village of El Khiam, killing Canadian Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three others serving as unarmed UN military observers in the area.
Just last week, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener wrote an e-mail about his experiences after nine months in the area, words Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said are an obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics.
"What I can tell you is this," he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. "We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.
"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."
Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, said Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie.
"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said.
That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It's a tactic Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he's seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.
A Canadian Forces infantry officer with the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and the only Canadian serving as a UN military observer in Lebanon, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener was no stranger to fighting nearby.
The UN post, he wrote in the e-mail, afforded a view of the "Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base."
"It appears that the lion's share of fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah has taken place in our area," he wrote, noting later it was too dangerous to venture out on patrols.
The e-mail appears to contradict the UN's claim there had been no Hezbollah activity in the vicinity of the strike.
The question of Hezbollah's infiltration of the area is significant because UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, speaking Tuesday just hours after the bombing, accused the Israelis of the "apparently deliberate targeting" of the base near Khiam in southern Lebanon.
A senior UN official, asked about the information contained in Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail concerning Hezbollah presence in the vicinity of the Khiam base, denied the world body had been caught in a contradiction.
"At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.
"Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don't know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us."
Even if Hezbollah was not firing rockets at the time of the bombing, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail indicates they were using a terrorist tactic of purposely drawing out enemy forces near a neutral site, said retired Capt. Peter Forsberg, who did two UN tours between 1993 and 1995 during the Bosnian war.
The UN's limited mandate, meaning that its observers are unarmed and have few options, put the observers in a poor position, he said.
If indeed Israel was attempting to hit Hezbollah fighters in the area, it hasn't yet used the excuse to explain its actions because it wouldn't make it any less guilty in the world's eyes, Capt. Forsberg said.
Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield': Canadian wrote of militia's presence, 'necessity' of bombing
Joel Kom, with files from Steven Edwards, CanWest News Service, The Ottawa Citizen
The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.
Those words, written in an e-mail dated just nine days ago, offer a possible explanation as to why the post -- which according to UN officials was clearly marked and known to Israeli forces -- was hit by Israel on Tuesday night, said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie yesterday.
The strike hit the UN observation post in the southern Lebanese village of El Khiam, killing Canadian Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three others serving as unarmed UN military observers in the area.
Just last week, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener wrote an e-mail about his experiences after nine months in the area, words Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said are an obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics.
"What I can tell you is this," he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. "We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.
"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."
Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, said Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie.
"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said.
That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It's a tactic Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he's seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.
A Canadian Forces infantry officer with the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and the only Canadian serving as a UN military observer in Lebanon, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener was no stranger to fighting nearby.
The UN post, he wrote in the e-mail, afforded a view of the "Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base."
"It appears that the lion's share of fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah has taken place in our area," he wrote, noting later it was too dangerous to venture out on patrols.
The e-mail appears to contradict the UN's claim there had been no Hezbollah activity in the vicinity of the strike.
The question of Hezbollah's infiltration of the area is significant because UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, speaking Tuesday just hours after the bombing, accused the Israelis of the "apparently deliberate targeting" of the base near Khiam in southern Lebanon.
A senior UN official, asked about the information contained in Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail concerning Hezbollah presence in the vicinity of the Khiam base, denied the world body had been caught in a contradiction.
"At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.
"Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don't know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us."
Even if Hezbollah was not firing rockets at the time of the bombing, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail indicates they were using a terrorist tactic of purposely drawing out enemy forces near a neutral site, said retired Capt. Peter Forsberg, who did two UN tours between 1993 and 1995 during the Bosnian war.
The UN's limited mandate, meaning that its observers are unarmed and have few options, put the observers in a poor position, he said.
If indeed Israel was attempting to hit Hezbollah fighters in the area, it hasn't yet used the excuse to explain its actions because it wouldn't make it any less guilty in the world's eyes, Capt. Forsberg said.
S
spmarshall
Guest
CanWest News Service
C
cdl42
Guest
Is what they've reported false or inappropiately biased?
E
EnviroTO
Guest
We know Hezbollah is using civilians, churches, mosques, etc as sheilds and it should be no surprise that they try and get close to the UN barracks in an attempt to shelter themselves. That doesn't excuse the fact that the people who reported the criminals are the ones paying the price. If I report a gang operating in the home next to me then I would expect more precautions to be taken to protect me, not less. If the message to the UN and civilians becomes don't report Hezbollah movements in your area because if you do you will be bombed that is a dumb message to send. The UN post had been in contact with the outside world observing what is going on outside their post and had provided information as to when Hezbollah was near and when it was not.
"At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.
"At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.
S
spmarshall
Guest
I have less and less trust in Fox News Canada, er, CanWest, especially after their false Iranian badge story a month or so ago.
Here's the Globe and Mail's take on the story (hardly a liberal paper these days) - it certainly shows that yes, there were terrorist targets in the area, Israel had warning, and in all liklihood, ignored it.
Israelis were warned to cease fire, UN says
Olmert tells Annan of his 'deep sorrow' over fatal assault on peacekeepers
SHAWN MCCARTHY
With a report from Carolynne Wheeler, special to The Globe and Mail, and Reuters
UNITED NATIONS -- The Israel Defence Forces received repeated and increasingly urgent warnings, both in the field and from New York, that they were targeting a United Nations monitoring post before they delivered a bomb that killed four peacekeepers, including a Canadian, UN officials said yesterday.
The bombardment lasted for six hours before the fatal strike and continued as peacekeepers mounted a rescue operation at the Khiyam observation post, officials said.
The four unarmed soldiers were part of a UN truce-monitoring operation that has been deployed in southern Lebanon for decades, and has been documenting Israeli and Hezbollah military activity since the crisis began.
On Tuesday, the four were relaying their observations by radio to the local UN headquarters, before seeking refuge in an above-ground shelter. Then the bombing began.
UN peacekeeping officials said the observers had reported no Hezbollah activity in the immediate vicinity of the post, though the officials acknowledged the militia has often shielded itself or hidden weapons caches near UN posts.
As of late yesterday, three peacekeepers were confirmed dead and one was still missing in the rubble; UN officials did not identify the dead soldiers, pending notification of their families. The victims were from China, Austria and Finland, as well as Canada.
The Prime Minister's Office identified the Canadian soldier as Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener of Kingston.
In response to the Israeli air strike, Australia will withdraw 12 of its peacekeepers from southern Lebanon to Beirut, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said early today.
After initially describing the Israeli targeting of the post as "apparently deliberate," UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said yesterday he accepted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's expression of "deep sorrow" over the incident.
"He definitely believes it's a mistake," Mr. Annan said after speaking to Mr. Olmert on the phone yesterday morning. "He has undertaken to investigate and I have suggested we do a joint investigation."
In a briefing to the Security Council yesterday, the UN's assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping operations, Jane Holl Lute, said Israeli forces were given ample warning about the nature of their target but failed to cease fire.
Soon after the barrage began, the French commander of the 2,000-strong UNIFIL force, General Alain Pellegrini, contacted Israeli military officials and urged them to end it. He gave precise co-ordinates for the observation post, which is next to a prison where Israelis held Lebanese militants during their occupation of the country 25 years ago.
When Gen. Pelligrini's pleas failed to halt the Israel Defence Forces assault, Ms. Lute and UN deputy secretary-general Mark Malloch-Brown made several phone calls to Israel's UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman, and urged him to intervene with the IDF.
In a briefing to reporters, a senior UN official said Mr. Gillerman expressed concern over the matter and said he would look into it, but insisted Israel was not deliberately targeting the UN peacekeepers.
UNIFIL has reported that its positions have been hit by Israeli artillery fire on several occasions since the offensive began.
The UN troops -- who are primarily from China, France, Ghana, India and Poland -- have also come under small-arms fire from Hezbollah militia.
The UN has made a formal request to Israel to co-operate in an investigation of Tuesday's incident, but so far, Israeli officials have said only that they would inform the UN of the results of its own inquiry.
Israeli officials expressed their sorrow over the killings, saying the UN post was mistakenly hit during an operation against Hezbollah positions in the area.
The Security Council yesterday failed to agree on a draft resolution that would express regret over the death of the peacekeepers, urge restraint but not suggest the attack was deliberate. The council's patience for debate ran out when Washington demanded the deletion of language condemning "any deliberate attack against UN personnel." Debate is to resume today.
Here's the Globe and Mail's take on the story (hardly a liberal paper these days) - it certainly shows that yes, there were terrorist targets in the area, Israel had warning, and in all liklihood, ignored it.
Israelis were warned to cease fire, UN says
Olmert tells Annan of his 'deep sorrow' over fatal assault on peacekeepers
SHAWN MCCARTHY
With a report from Carolynne Wheeler, special to The Globe and Mail, and Reuters
UNITED NATIONS -- The Israel Defence Forces received repeated and increasingly urgent warnings, both in the field and from New York, that they were targeting a United Nations monitoring post before they delivered a bomb that killed four peacekeepers, including a Canadian, UN officials said yesterday.
The bombardment lasted for six hours before the fatal strike and continued as peacekeepers mounted a rescue operation at the Khiyam observation post, officials said.
The four unarmed soldiers were part of a UN truce-monitoring operation that has been deployed in southern Lebanon for decades, and has been documenting Israeli and Hezbollah military activity since the crisis began.
On Tuesday, the four were relaying their observations by radio to the local UN headquarters, before seeking refuge in an above-ground shelter. Then the bombing began.
UN peacekeeping officials said the observers had reported no Hezbollah activity in the immediate vicinity of the post, though the officials acknowledged the militia has often shielded itself or hidden weapons caches near UN posts.
As of late yesterday, three peacekeepers were confirmed dead and one was still missing in the rubble; UN officials did not identify the dead soldiers, pending notification of their families. The victims were from China, Austria and Finland, as well as Canada.
The Prime Minister's Office identified the Canadian soldier as Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener of Kingston.
In response to the Israeli air strike, Australia will withdraw 12 of its peacekeepers from southern Lebanon to Beirut, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said early today.
After initially describing the Israeli targeting of the post as "apparently deliberate," UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said yesterday he accepted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's expression of "deep sorrow" over the incident.
"He definitely believes it's a mistake," Mr. Annan said after speaking to Mr. Olmert on the phone yesterday morning. "He has undertaken to investigate and I have suggested we do a joint investigation."
In a briefing to the Security Council yesterday, the UN's assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping operations, Jane Holl Lute, said Israeli forces were given ample warning about the nature of their target but failed to cease fire.
Soon after the barrage began, the French commander of the 2,000-strong UNIFIL force, General Alain Pellegrini, contacted Israeli military officials and urged them to end it. He gave precise co-ordinates for the observation post, which is next to a prison where Israelis held Lebanese militants during their occupation of the country 25 years ago.
When Gen. Pelligrini's pleas failed to halt the Israel Defence Forces assault, Ms. Lute and UN deputy secretary-general Mark Malloch-Brown made several phone calls to Israel's UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman, and urged him to intervene with the IDF.
In a briefing to reporters, a senior UN official said Mr. Gillerman expressed concern over the matter and said he would look into it, but insisted Israel was not deliberately targeting the UN peacekeepers.
UNIFIL has reported that its positions have been hit by Israeli artillery fire on several occasions since the offensive began.
The UN troops -- who are primarily from China, France, Ghana, India and Poland -- have also come under small-arms fire from Hezbollah militia.
The UN has made a formal request to Israel to co-operate in an investigation of Tuesday's incident, but so far, Israeli officials have said only that they would inform the UN of the results of its own inquiry.
Israeli officials expressed their sorrow over the killings, saying the UN post was mistakenly hit during an operation against Hezbollah positions in the area.
The Security Council yesterday failed to agree on a draft resolution that would express regret over the death of the peacekeepers, urge restraint but not suggest the attack was deliberate. The council's patience for debate ran out when Washington demanded the deletion of language condemning "any deliberate attack against UN personnel." Debate is to resume today.
A
allabootmatt
Guest
There is an op-ed in the Globe by Lewis Mackenzie today that confirms and elaborates upon what was reported in the "Fox News Canada" article.
Yeah, the Aspers are known for being pro-Israel. Just as The Guardian, which is oft-cited on this board, is known for being anti-Israel. Both are capable of honest reporting.
Yeah, the Aspers are known for being pro-Israel. Just as The Guardian, which is oft-cited on this board, is known for being anti-Israel. Both are capable of honest reporting.
D
drunknsubmrnr
Guest
Arab nations' lack of concern for Israeli civilians (and often even their own civilians) is terrible, but it is absolutely every warring government's responsibility to protect the civilians of an enemy nation as much as at all possible. It is absolutely at the foundation of modern notions of civilized warfare.
Not really. They're required not to inflict damage that isn't commensurate with the military advantage gained. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're supposed to protect the other sides civilians.
Kevin
S
spmarshall
Guest
They're required not to inflict damage that isn't commensurate with the military advantage gained.
This isn't even technically a war with Lebanon (it isn't where the Israeli military fighting a regular Lebanese military), it's a military action of questionable legality under international law (though military actions without declarations of war have been common by many countries).
I don't see the military advantage gained based on your justification - what's the count? Something like 60 Israeli civilans dead versus 700 Lebanese civilians dead? And it's not like the rockets have stopped firing yet, just more rage.
Cooler heads need to prevail on all sides.
P
peachy0
Guest
I hate it when people compare the "body count" as if this is a video game. When people die in the course of a war (or military action, or whatever), it's tragic. But it's not about equating the number of people who died. If 700 Israeli civilians had died would it all suddenly be okay?I don't see the military advantage gained based on your justification - what's the count? Something like 60 Israeli civilans dead versus 700 Lebanese civilians dead?
Perhaps Israel should not allow citizens into bomb shelters, not have evacuated the hospitals before they were bombed, and not have sirens warning people that a rocket is about to come. If they didn't have a strong infrastructure protecting their citizens from incoming rockets then the "body count" would likely be close to equal. But it wouldn't make a shred of difference - the issue here is not "60 Israelis killed vs 700 Lebanese killed" it's about what is actually going on.
S
spmarshall
Guest
I hate it when people take what I am saying and twist it. I'm saying that the military objectives are not being served - others will see the figures, and get more enraged. Lebanon's been bombed back to the 1980s (just look at Beirut, far from the Hezbollah strongholds), and I doubt that will help Israel or anyone else (except those who thrive on rage and violence) in the short or long terms.
P
peachy0
Guest
Sorry, didn't mean to pick on what you were saying in that way. Just that this "600 vs 70" quote seems to be in all the papers and all the news programs these days with the implication that the military action is unreasonable because of the unbalanced number.I hate it when people take what I am saying and twist it.
A
allabootmatt
Guest
Hasn't most of Beirut been left untouched by this campaign? A friend works with a (Christian) Beiruti, who apparently said that the vaunted "death of Beirut" has been limited to a fairly small area in the southern suburbs (the strikes on the airport and lighthouse aside)--an area which is basically photographed over and over from different angles, making the devastation appear more widespread than it is.
Places like Tyre, I imagine, are another story entirely.
Places like Tyre, I imagine, are another story entirely.