D
drunknsubmrnr
Guest
How would you know if the military objectives were not being served? Do you have some source of information the rest of us don't?
Kevin
|
|
|
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.
How would you know if the military objectives were not being served? Do you have some source of information the rest of us don't?
Kevin
G
ganjavih
Guest
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.
Well, there's something wrong when a so-called civilised state's military is better at killing civilians than terrorists who, by definition, purposely target them.
P
peachy0
Guest
In the context of a war, 600 civilian deaths is a tiny number. I'm not saying that it's not sad, and for those individual's families, in particular, it is no doubt tragic. But if Israel wasn't doing everything in its power to minimize civilian deaths the numbers wouldn't be in the hundreds, they would be in the thousands. I think it's pretty impressive and shows how careful the Israeli army is being to have a casualty count in the hundreds rather than thousands or more when you're fighting an enemy that uses civilians as shields.Well, there's something wrong when a so-called civilised state's military is better at killing civilians than terrorists who, by definition, purposely target them.
B
bizorky
Guest
peachy0,
your first sentence is exactly what you accused spmarshall of doing: engaging in a numbers game. Who says 600 is a small number? Who gets to determine such a thing? Are we not talking about 600 people who had nothing to do with this "war"? Are we not talking about hundreds of others being injured? It is all too easy for any of us to declare what is a small number of deaths if those dead or injured do not include friends and family, or if we put aside empathy because of ideology.
Nevertheless, emotional distance should not be a substitute for recognition that 600 civilian deaths is still 600 human beings killed because they happened to be in the way of military actions. The same thinking goes for the Israeli's killed by Hezbollah actions. One killed is too many.
Sadly, this type of acceptance can come when notions of military actions are separated out from the larger human context. A focus on military objectives and ends alone is an ideology that obscures the fact that the cost is human life, intentional or not.
your first sentence is exactly what you accused spmarshall of doing: engaging in a numbers game. Who says 600 is a small number? Who gets to determine such a thing? Are we not talking about 600 people who had nothing to do with this "war"? Are we not talking about hundreds of others being injured? It is all too easy for any of us to declare what is a small number of deaths if those dead or injured do not include friends and family, or if we put aside empathy because of ideology.
Nevertheless, emotional distance should not be a substitute for recognition that 600 civilian deaths is still 600 human beings killed because they happened to be in the way of military actions. The same thinking goes for the Israeli's killed by Hezbollah actions. One killed is too many.
Sadly, this type of acceptance can come when notions of military actions are separated out from the larger human context. A focus on military objectives and ends alone is an ideology that obscures the fact that the cost is human life, intentional or not.
P
peachy0
Guest
bizorky, I don't agree. To me, it's completely different to say "this is disproportionate because so many more Lebanese civilians have died than Israeli civilians" than to say "given the number of casualties relative to warfare in general, as well as in the specific situation being discussed, I am satisfied that Israel is doing everything it can to minimize civilian casualties".
I do not think that the number of 600, whether considered to be small or large, should be used as a justification to continue this warfare. But I similarly don't think it's reasonable to say "Israel is clearly the aggressor and the wrong-doer here" because 600 is a larger number than 70.
That is, the question of how many people have died is relevant in the context of ensuring that civilians are not being targetted specifically. They are not relevant in the context of deciding who is in the "right".
I do not think that the number of 600, whether considered to be small or large, should be used as a justification to continue this warfare. But I similarly don't think it's reasonable to say "Israel is clearly the aggressor and the wrong-doer here" because 600 is a larger number than 70.
That is, the question of how many people have died is relevant in the context of ensuring that civilians are not being targetted specifically. They are not relevant in the context of deciding who is in the "right".
B
bizorky
Guest
Peachy0, you might be satisfied that the Israeli military is doing everything it can to minimize civilian casualties, but I am sure that many Lebanese would disagree with that sentiment. I don't think they would be wrong, given the evidence.
Yes, the number of people killed is small compared to wars of the past, but is that anything to be proud of? Civilians are always targets of warfare, directly or indirectly. The excusing of their deaths by way of perceived low numbers, labeling them with terms such as "collateral" damage, or indirectly blaming them for getting in the way of the fighting is a means to reducing their deaths.
Hezbollah's actions can hardly be called "targetted" with respect to their rocket launches. They are not making distinctions concerning what, or who, they may hit. The Israeli justification for fighting back comes directly into question when, in wanting to stop such actions, civilians come to be deemed as incidental. The irony is that they become less important when compared to the important task of killing Hezbollah.
I am not sure what you are getting at in these sentences. It would appear to be splitting hairs on the issue of accounting for numbers dead on the basis of intentions. For example, in using the above logic, we can suppose the possibility of a "moral" war where ten thousand civilians unrelated to the combatants, or the rationale (the "context") for the conflict, were killed. These ten thousand dead should be, in a sense, disregarded because the basis for exercising the war was deemed to be moral. In other words, the effects (the dead) are separated out from the moral intentions. In this idealistic stance, the moral intentions are allowed to stand on their own.
I have to wonder if such an approach is sustainable? I don't believe it is.
Yes, the number of people killed is small compared to wars of the past, but is that anything to be proud of? Civilians are always targets of warfare, directly or indirectly. The excusing of their deaths by way of perceived low numbers, labeling them with terms such as "collateral" damage, or indirectly blaming them for getting in the way of the fighting is a means to reducing their deaths.
Hezbollah's actions can hardly be called "targetted" with respect to their rocket launches. They are not making distinctions concerning what, or who, they may hit. The Israeli justification for fighting back comes directly into question when, in wanting to stop such actions, civilians come to be deemed as incidental. The irony is that they become less important when compared to the important task of killing Hezbollah.
That is, the question of how many people have died is relevant in the context of ensuring that civilians are not being targetted specifically. They are not relevant in the context of deciding who is in the "right".
I am not sure what you are getting at in these sentences. It would appear to be splitting hairs on the issue of accounting for numbers dead on the basis of intentions. For example, in using the above logic, we can suppose the possibility of a "moral" war where ten thousand civilians unrelated to the combatants, or the rationale (the "context") for the conflict, were killed. These ten thousand dead should be, in a sense, disregarded because the basis for exercising the war was deemed to be moral. In other words, the effects (the dead) are separated out from the moral intentions. In this idealistic stance, the moral intentions are allowed to stand on their own.
I have to wonder if such an approach is sustainable? I don't believe it is.
P
peachy0
Guest
I do feel that Israel is minimizing casualties as much as possible within the context of their stated goals. It believe that it is open for debate whether they should be continuing their attack on Hezbollah, and that there is no clear answer. But within the context of Israel's continuing military action, that is, within their stated goals of dismantling Hezbollah as much as possible, are you saying that they are purposefully targetting civilians? That they are not doing enough to minimize civilian casualties?Peachy0, you might be satisfied that the Israeli military is doing everything it can to minimize civilian casualties, but I am sure that many Lebanese would disagree with that sentiment. I don't think they would be wrong, given the evidence.
I don't understand that at all. I guess if you're of the opinion that wars should never happen no matter what, then all parties are morally obligated to stop firing as soon as possible, and they are in the wrong no matter what the consequences to their security or to potential future attacks. But otherwise, wars happen, and civilians die, and it is tragic, but what is the option?Yes, the number of people killed is small compared to wars of the past, but is that anything to be proud of? Civilians are always targets of warfare, directly or indirectly. The excusing of their deaths by way of perceived low numbers, labeling them with terms such as "collateral" damage, or indirectly blaming them for getting in the way of the fighting is a means to reducing their deaths.
I do not see the irony.The irony is that they become less important when compared to the important task of killing Hezbollah.
B
bizorky
Guest
Whether the Israeli military is targeting civilians is both a clear and a nebulous issue as Hezbollah, in its present incarnation, is not a "military" organization. Neverthleless, some members do carry out actions of warfare. This is a fact. I have no sympathy for those who fire missiles with the intent of killing anyone who just happens to be in their way.
The question you raise is whether the Israeli military is targetting civilians on purpose, and my answer would be that, in the very least, civilian Hezbollah supporters and sympathizers may very well be targetted. However, in the process of doing so, many people not interested in Hezbollah are also being killed. I am not so much interested in the distinctions as I am concerned that civilian deaths are being justified in some way in the name of killing terrorists. Even if the Israeli military is "trying," there are still civilians dying in large numbers. I don't see any justification in terms of justice, rightness, correctness or any other adequate grounds for conduct.
As for being of the opinion that wars should not happen, would that not be an ideal situation? Of course wars happen, but let's say that when they do it represent a complete failure in human and cultural relationships. Wars happen when all else fails. The options would be solutions other than war, options that include justice and fairness for all those involved. Would this be difficult? Without a doubt. Is it possible? So long as people think so. Will it always work? Probably not. Is it better than the killing enormous numbers of people? Yes.
As for my sentence: "The irony is that they (civilians) become less important when compared to the important task of killing Hezbollah" is simply that. To stop civilian deaths in Israel, numerous Lebanese civilians die in the effort to kill those trying to kill civilians. It is a zero sum game for those who died in the name of fighting terrorism
The question you raise is whether the Israeli military is targetting civilians on purpose, and my answer would be that, in the very least, civilian Hezbollah supporters and sympathizers may very well be targetted. However, in the process of doing so, many people not interested in Hezbollah are also being killed. I am not so much interested in the distinctions as I am concerned that civilian deaths are being justified in some way in the name of killing terrorists. Even if the Israeli military is "trying," there are still civilians dying in large numbers. I don't see any justification in terms of justice, rightness, correctness or any other adequate grounds for conduct.
As for being of the opinion that wars should not happen, would that not be an ideal situation? Of course wars happen, but let's say that when they do it represent a complete failure in human and cultural relationships. Wars happen when all else fails. The options would be solutions other than war, options that include justice and fairness for all those involved. Would this be difficult? Without a doubt. Is it possible? So long as people think so. Will it always work? Probably not. Is it better than the killing enormous numbers of people? Yes.
As for my sentence: "The irony is that they (civilians) become less important when compared to the important task of killing Hezbollah" is simply that. To stop civilian deaths in Israel, numerous Lebanese civilians die in the effort to kill those trying to kill civilians. It is a zero sum game for those who died in the name of fighting terrorism
P
peachy0
Guest
What do you think Israel should do? You think that they should maintain the status quo along the Israeli/Lebanese border with Hezbollah amassing more and more weapons and continuing to attack Israel whenever they feel like it?I don't see any justification in terms of justice, rightness, correctness or any other adequate grounds for conduct.
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"The irony is that they (civilians) become less important when compared to the important task of killing Hezbollah"
Hezbollah members are civilians...to kill Hezbollah you must kill civilians unless they're walking around with big H's on their backs to differentiate them. I wonder if regular Lebanese folk would be safest if Israel just invaded and took over the whole country in one fell swoop - it might be easier to sieve out Hezbollah members that way...not that that would put an end to local terrorism, though.
Hezbollah members are civilians...to kill Hezbollah you must kill civilians unless they're walking around with big H's on their backs to differentiate them. I wonder if regular Lebanese folk would be safest if Israel just invaded and took over the whole country in one fell swoop - it might be easier to sieve out Hezbollah members that way...not that that would put an end to local terrorism, though.
B
bizorky
Guest
What do you think Israel should do? You think that they should maintain the status quo along the Israeli/Lebanese border with Hezbollah amassing more and more weapons and continuing to attack Israel whenever they feel like it?
You are taking my sentence out of context. Rather than answer your question, I am still waiting for a justification (from anyone) for the killing of a large number of civilians, all in the name of killing what has so far amounted to a handful of terrorists. Yes, the Israeli government is doing something about fighting terrorism, but in carrying out its actions it is generating an ever larger number of civilian injuries and deaths. At what point does it all become unacceptable, unbalanced or unmeasured? What is an acceptable level of civilian deaths? Who gets to decide these things, and what grounds is such a decision made?
It is difficult to justify the killing of terrorists in the name of civilian casualties when the net result is a significantly larger number of civilian casualties and deaths. That is my point. Maybe I am wrong, but I hardly think anyone can fairly judge when the death of many others becomes a justifiable end to stopping the killing of civilians somewhere else.
I suppose one could nuke Lebanon, get rid of Hezbollah, their missiles and their ideology all in one fell swoop. The problem of terrorism on that front would be completely "solved." The rest of those evaporated could be considered as collateral damage, somehow justified within the means to finally eliminating terrorist ends.
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
But that wouldn't be a measured response.I suppose one could nuke Lebanon, get rid of Hezbollah, their missiles and their ideology all in one fell swoop.
D
drunknsubmrnr
Guest
Rather than answer your question, I am still waiting for a justification (from anyone) for the killing of a large number of civilians, all in the name of killing what has so far amounted to a handful of terrorists.
Lebanon staged an unprovoked attack on Israel. Israel is justified in fighting back. They're required to follow the Laws of Land Warfare, but I haven't seen or heard of any violations of those.
You seem to be under the apprehension that all civilians have unlimited protection, and it just isn't so. Under the laws of warfare, civilian deaths and woundings are acceptable as long as they aren't specifically targetted, and the country inflicting the damage does its best to avoid civilian deaths.
Who gets to decide these things, and what grounds is such a decision made?
The Israelis get to decide these things, for they have the military power. Military power is the final arbiter in all international relations.
It is difficult to justify the killing of terrorists in the name of civilian casualties when the net result is a significantly larger number of civilian casualties and deaths.
Not to me. The only surprising aspect of this is that civilian casualties have been so low.
I suppose one could nuke Lebanon, get rid of Hezbollah, their missiles and their ideology all in one fell swoop. The problem of terrorism on that front would be completely "solved."
You'd have to nuke Iran and Syria as well. You're correct though, that would solve a lot of these problems.
The rest of those evaporated could be considered as collateral damage, somehow justified within the means to finally eliminating terrorist ends.
No, most of the civilians would die from burns or radiation sickness. You have to be pretty close to the fireball to be vapourised.
Kevin
S
spmarshall
Guest
Israel now targeting Christians
This comes as an international ceasefire resolution will likely be approved soon. Tell me that this is right - targetting areas without terrorist activity or support.
Israeli missiles pound Beirut
For the first time, mostly Christian suburbs are targeted
Aug. 4, 2006. 11:02 AM
SAM GHATTAS
ASSOCIATED PRESS
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Israel expanded its assault on Lebanon Friday, launching its first major attack on the Christian heartland north of Beirut and severing the last significant road link to Syria.
Hezbollah renewed attacks on northern Israel, killing two civilians in a barrage of 120 rockets.
An Israeli airstrike hit dozens of farm workers loading vegetables near the Lebanon-Syria border, killing 28, the workers' foreman and a Lebanese official said.
Five Lebanese civilians were killed and 19 wounded in the Israeli airstrikes north of the capital in Christian areas where Hezbollah has little support or presence, including the picturesque coastal resort of Jounieh.
In separate air raids near Beirut's airport and southern suburbs, a Lebanese soldier was killed and two soldiers and four civilians were wounded, security officials and witnesses said. The predominantly Shiite Muslim sector is largely controlled by Hezbollah guerrillas. Israel said Hezbollah facilities and a Hamas office were targeted.
Two Israeli soldiers were killed by a Hezbollah anti-tank missile during heavy fighting in a southern Lebanese village where the militant group had been launching rockets, the army said.
The Israeli attacks on the four bridges on the main north-south coastal highway linking Beirut to Syria severed the only remaining major road link between Lebanon and Syria. The 90-minute drive to the Syrian border takes at least double the time on the small coastal road that remains open.
Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, a staunch pro-Syrian and close ally of Hezbollah, charged that Israel is trying to pressure Lebanon to accept its conditions for a cease-fire , which include Hezbollah's disarmament and ouster from a swath of south Lebanon.
"The Israeli enemy's bombing of bridges and roads is aimed at tightening the blockade on the Lebanese, cutting communications between them and starving them," Lahoud said.
He linked the new raids to Israel's failure to win quick victory in the south, where Israeli soldiers have been mired in ground battles with Hezbollah guerrillas for several days.
An Israeli army spokesman, Capt. Jacob Dallal, said Israel targeted the bridges to stop the flow of weapons from Syria.
International aid agencies said Friday said the road bombing would slow down aid shipments to needy civilians in central Lebanon and the coastline around the capital, Beirut, where the bulk of the population lives.
Border crossings in the east have been shut by airstrikes. Israel has imposed a naval blockade and has hit the international airport to seal off Lebanon's sea and airspace.
"This is Lebanon's umbilical cord," Christiane Berthiaume of the World Food Program told The Associated Press. "This (road) has been the only way for us to bring in aid. We really need to find other ways to bring relief in.''
In the farm attack near al-Qaa, a town about six miles from a Hezbollah stronghold, Lebanese civil defense official Ali Yaghi said at least 28 people were killed.
Yaghi said at least 12 workers were wounded and some were likely buried under rubble. A bulldozer was brought to the site to try to uncover survivors, he said. The Israeli army said it had attacked two buildings where it suspected weapons were being stored, and it was checking reports that it had hit a vegetable storehouse and civilians.
In Israel, police said 120 rockets had fallen, including one that crashed into a house in the Israeli Arab town of Mughar, killing a woman. An Israeli man was killed near the border town of Kiryat Shemona.
Police commander Dan Ronen said 45 rockets had fallen within one half-hour period.
More than three weeks into the fighting, six Israeli brigades — or roughly 10,000 troops — were locked in battle with hundreds of Hezbollah guerrillas in about 20 towns and villages in south Lebanon.
Israeli artillery intensified bombing there overnight, sending as many as 15 shells per minute against suspected Hezbollah strongholds.
Defense Minister Amir Peretz has told top army officers to begin preparing for a push to the Litani River, about 20 miles north of the border. That would require further approval by Israel's Security Cabinet and could lead to far more casualties.
Hezbollah said in a statement broadcast by the group's Al-Manar TV station that guerrillas had killed six Israeli soldiers near the villages of Aita al-Shaab and Markaba.
The Israeli army said two soldiers were killed and two wounded by a Hezbollah anti-tank missile during heavy fighting in a village where the militant group had been launching rockets.
Despite Israel's efforts, Hezbollah launched at least 200 rockets into northern Israel on Thursday, in a new tactic of simultaneously firing a large number of rockets.
Hezbollah's leader offered to stop attacking if Israel ends its airstrikes.
Israel's United Nations ambassador, Dan Gillerman, said that Sheik Hassan Nasrallah's offer of a truce was "a sign of weakness ... and he may be looking for a way out.''
Gillerman warned against a threat by Nasrallah to launch rockets on Israel's commercial center, Tel Aviv.
"We are ready for it, and I am sure that he (Nasrallah), as well as his sponsors, realize the consequences of doing something as unimaginable and crazy as that," the Israeli ambassador told CNN.
On the second front of its offensive against Islamic militants, Israel began pulling tanks out of southern Gaza after a two-day incursion that killed eleven Palestinians, including an 8-year-old boy.
The fighting in Gaza, which began June 25 after Hamas-linked militants captured an Israeli soldier in a cross-border raid, has killed a total of 175 Palestinians, the U.N. reported, adding that it was concerned that "with international attention focusing on Lebanon, the tragedy in Gaza is being forgotten.''
The offensive in Lebanon began after another cross-border raid by Hezbollah guerrillas who captured two Israeli soldiers.
According to an Associated Press count, at least 530 Lebanese have been killed, including 454 civilians confirmed dead by the Health Ministry; 26 Lebanese soldiers; and at least 50 Hezbollah guerrillas.
Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said that 1 million people — or about a quarter of Lebanon's population — had fled the fighting.
Seventy-two Israelis have been killed — 43 soldiers and 29 civilians. More than 300,000 Israelis have fled their homes in the north, Israeli officials said.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton said the United States and France have "come a long way" in negotiating a Security Council resolution that calls for an immediate end to Middle East hostilities,said.
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed support Thursday for an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon as the first phase in ending the conflict. It was the most concrete signal yet that the U.S. may be willing to compromise on the stalemate over how to end the fighting.
Israel, backed by the United States, has rejected calls for an immediate cease-fire, saying it wants an international force or the Lebanese army to deploy in southern Lebanon to prevent future Hezbollah attacks.
This comes as an international ceasefire resolution will likely be approved soon. Tell me that this is right - targetting areas without terrorist activity or support.
Israeli missiles pound Beirut
For the first time, mostly Christian suburbs are targeted
Aug. 4, 2006. 11:02 AM
SAM GHATTAS
ASSOCIATED PRESS
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Israel expanded its assault on Lebanon Friday, launching its first major attack on the Christian heartland north of Beirut and severing the last significant road link to Syria.
Hezbollah renewed attacks on northern Israel, killing two civilians in a barrage of 120 rockets.
An Israeli airstrike hit dozens of farm workers loading vegetables near the Lebanon-Syria border, killing 28, the workers' foreman and a Lebanese official said.
Five Lebanese civilians were killed and 19 wounded in the Israeli airstrikes north of the capital in Christian areas where Hezbollah has little support or presence, including the picturesque coastal resort of Jounieh.
In separate air raids near Beirut's airport and southern suburbs, a Lebanese soldier was killed and two soldiers and four civilians were wounded, security officials and witnesses said. The predominantly Shiite Muslim sector is largely controlled by Hezbollah guerrillas. Israel said Hezbollah facilities and a Hamas office were targeted.
Two Israeli soldiers were killed by a Hezbollah anti-tank missile during heavy fighting in a southern Lebanese village where the militant group had been launching rockets, the army said.
The Israeli attacks on the four bridges on the main north-south coastal highway linking Beirut to Syria severed the only remaining major road link between Lebanon and Syria. The 90-minute drive to the Syrian border takes at least double the time on the small coastal road that remains open.
Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, a staunch pro-Syrian and close ally of Hezbollah, charged that Israel is trying to pressure Lebanon to accept its conditions for a cease-fire , which include Hezbollah's disarmament and ouster from a swath of south Lebanon.
"The Israeli enemy's bombing of bridges and roads is aimed at tightening the blockade on the Lebanese, cutting communications between them and starving them," Lahoud said.
He linked the new raids to Israel's failure to win quick victory in the south, where Israeli soldiers have been mired in ground battles with Hezbollah guerrillas for several days.
An Israeli army spokesman, Capt. Jacob Dallal, said Israel targeted the bridges to stop the flow of weapons from Syria.
International aid agencies said Friday said the road bombing would slow down aid shipments to needy civilians in central Lebanon and the coastline around the capital, Beirut, where the bulk of the population lives.
Border crossings in the east have been shut by airstrikes. Israel has imposed a naval blockade and has hit the international airport to seal off Lebanon's sea and airspace.
"This is Lebanon's umbilical cord," Christiane Berthiaume of the World Food Program told The Associated Press. "This (road) has been the only way for us to bring in aid. We really need to find other ways to bring relief in.''
In the farm attack near al-Qaa, a town about six miles from a Hezbollah stronghold, Lebanese civil defense official Ali Yaghi said at least 28 people were killed.
Yaghi said at least 12 workers were wounded and some were likely buried under rubble. A bulldozer was brought to the site to try to uncover survivors, he said. The Israeli army said it had attacked two buildings where it suspected weapons were being stored, and it was checking reports that it had hit a vegetable storehouse and civilians.
In Israel, police said 120 rockets had fallen, including one that crashed into a house in the Israeli Arab town of Mughar, killing a woman. An Israeli man was killed near the border town of Kiryat Shemona.
Police commander Dan Ronen said 45 rockets had fallen within one half-hour period.
More than three weeks into the fighting, six Israeli brigades — or roughly 10,000 troops — were locked in battle with hundreds of Hezbollah guerrillas in about 20 towns and villages in south Lebanon.
Israeli artillery intensified bombing there overnight, sending as many as 15 shells per minute against suspected Hezbollah strongholds.
Defense Minister Amir Peretz has told top army officers to begin preparing for a push to the Litani River, about 20 miles north of the border. That would require further approval by Israel's Security Cabinet and could lead to far more casualties.
Hezbollah said in a statement broadcast by the group's Al-Manar TV station that guerrillas had killed six Israeli soldiers near the villages of Aita al-Shaab and Markaba.
The Israeli army said two soldiers were killed and two wounded by a Hezbollah anti-tank missile during heavy fighting in a village where the militant group had been launching rockets.
Despite Israel's efforts, Hezbollah launched at least 200 rockets into northern Israel on Thursday, in a new tactic of simultaneously firing a large number of rockets.
Hezbollah's leader offered to stop attacking if Israel ends its airstrikes.
Israel's United Nations ambassador, Dan Gillerman, said that Sheik Hassan Nasrallah's offer of a truce was "a sign of weakness ... and he may be looking for a way out.''
Gillerman warned against a threat by Nasrallah to launch rockets on Israel's commercial center, Tel Aviv.
"We are ready for it, and I am sure that he (Nasrallah), as well as his sponsors, realize the consequences of doing something as unimaginable and crazy as that," the Israeli ambassador told CNN.
On the second front of its offensive against Islamic militants, Israel began pulling tanks out of southern Gaza after a two-day incursion that killed eleven Palestinians, including an 8-year-old boy.
The fighting in Gaza, which began June 25 after Hamas-linked militants captured an Israeli soldier in a cross-border raid, has killed a total of 175 Palestinians, the U.N. reported, adding that it was concerned that "with international attention focusing on Lebanon, the tragedy in Gaza is being forgotten.''
The offensive in Lebanon began after another cross-border raid by Hezbollah guerrillas who captured two Israeli soldiers.
According to an Associated Press count, at least 530 Lebanese have been killed, including 454 civilians confirmed dead by the Health Ministry; 26 Lebanese soldiers; and at least 50 Hezbollah guerrillas.
Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said that 1 million people — or about a quarter of Lebanon's population — had fled the fighting.
Seventy-two Israelis have been killed — 43 soldiers and 29 civilians. More than 300,000 Israelis have fled their homes in the north, Israeli officials said.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton said the United States and France have "come a long way" in negotiating a Security Council resolution that calls for an immediate end to Middle East hostilities,said.
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed support Thursday for an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon as the first phase in ending the conflict. It was the most concrete signal yet that the U.S. may be willing to compromise on the stalemate over how to end the fighting.
Israel, backed by the United States, has rejected calls for an immediate cease-fire, saying it wants an international force or the Lebanese army to deploy in southern Lebanon to prevent future Hezbollah attacks.
B
bizorky
Guest
Re: Israel now targeting Christians
"Lebanon" didn't do anything. A group within Lebanon has carried out attacks. A set of "laws" may or may not have been violated on paper, but many people unrelated to the conflict are still dead. They will have trouble contesting these laws.
I am under no mis-apprehensions about protections for civilians. If anything, I have been pointing out that civilians have very little protection. A thousand civilian deaths may be acceptable to you, but others may disagree.
As for the "laws" of warfare deeming civilian deaths as being "acceptable," yet another case of ideology trumping human life. What is the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable? Who appointed themselves to calculate such a number?
I was speaking to a larger context.
So there is no upward limit on the number of civilians to be killed in the name of the fight against terrorism? I guess it comes down to who is doing the killing and who is being killed.
So maybe there is no upward limit for the number of civilians to be killed for some. The original statement was meant to suggest (in an excessive fashion) that if there is no civilian price too high in the fight against ideological differences, then is there no limit to the type of warfare to be exercised. In other words, throw the baby (and everything else) out with the bathwater.
One purpose of actions against terrorism is supposedly to protect civilians that those terrorists threaten, or more broadly, human life. But then again, maybe there is no civilian price too high when it comes to protecting civilians. An interesting irony, as always.
Lebanon staged an unprovoked attack on Israel. Israel is justified in fighting back. They're required to follow the Laws of Land Warfare, but I haven't seen or heard of any violations of those.
You seem to be under the apprehension that all civilians have unlimited protection, and it just isn't so. Under the laws of warfare, civilian deaths and woundings are acceptable as long as they aren't specifically targetted, and the country inflicting the damage does its best to avoid civilian deaths.
"Lebanon" didn't do anything. A group within Lebanon has carried out attacks. A set of "laws" may or may not have been violated on paper, but many people unrelated to the conflict are still dead. They will have trouble contesting these laws.
I am under no mis-apprehensions about protections for civilians. If anything, I have been pointing out that civilians have very little protection. A thousand civilian deaths may be acceptable to you, but others may disagree.
As for the "laws" of warfare deeming civilian deaths as being "acceptable," yet another case of ideology trumping human life. What is the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable? Who appointed themselves to calculate such a number?
The Israelis get to decide these things, for they have the military power. Military power is the final arbiter in all international relations.
I was speaking to a larger context.
Not to me. The only surprising aspect of this is that civilian casualties have been so low.
So there is no upward limit on the number of civilians to be killed in the name of the fight against terrorism? I guess it comes down to who is doing the killing and who is being killed.
You'd have to nuke Iran and Syria as well. You're correct though, that would solve a lot of these problems.
So maybe there is no upward limit for the number of civilians to be killed for some. The original statement was meant to suggest (in an excessive fashion) that if there is no civilian price too high in the fight against ideological differences, then is there no limit to the type of warfare to be exercised. In other words, throw the baby (and everything else) out with the bathwater.
One purpose of actions against terrorism is supposedly to protect civilians that those terrorists threaten, or more broadly, human life. But then again, maybe there is no civilian price too high when it comes to protecting civilians. An interesting irony, as always.