Israel's Response Risks Its Security: The Guardian

[liberalpragmatist]

Israel's response risks its security

Henry Siegman
Sunday July 16, 2006
The Observer

In Lebanon as in Gaza, it is not Israel's right to protect its civilian population from terrorist aggression that is at issue. It is the way Israel goes about exercising that right.

Despite bitter lessons from the past, Israel's political and military leaders remain addicted to the notion that, whatever they have a right to do, they have a right to overdo, to the point where they lose what international support they had when they began their retaliatory measures.

Israel's response to the terrorist assault in Gaza and the outrageous and unprovoked Hizbollah assault across its northern border in Lebanon, far from providing protection to its citizens, may well further undermine their security by destabilising the wider region.

(cont...)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,1821605,00.html

Henry Siegman is a Senior Fellow on the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations, a visiting professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program of the School of Oriental and African Studies in London and former head of the American Jewish Congress. These views are his own.

[AnOhioan]

1. Excellent article

The author calls not only Israel but Hamas and Hezbollah to task for the current round of violence.

Best damn article I have read on the subject.

[pelsar]

2. it is a good article..

i read it twice...but out of curiosity..why is it when you posted parts, you completely ignored the parts condeming the hamas/hizballa.....now this may be me nitpicking, but it did strike me as odd, given the character of the article.

[AnOhioan]

3. I think you were directing your post at the OP?

My post noted that the author took all parties to task.

[pelsar]

4. no it was to you...

the way you bolded a specific section (your choice)....as i read the beginning i figured it was a typical one side article as i read further i discoved differently..

just an impression, no more than that.

[liberalpragmatist]

5. No, you're directing it to me, I'm the OP

I just felt it was an angle of the story that I wanted to emphasize; I think Israel was right to respond, as no government should just resist a blatant, unprovoked attack. But I get into fights with my pro-Israel friends all the time over this, as they accuse me of not letting Israel defend itself. Israel has a right to defend itself; I question the effectiveness (and the morality) of some of their responses.

So if you have a quarrel with the way it was presented, then there's your answer. I'm not going to pretend I don't have a point-of-view in this and I wanted to make a point. But you raise a good point that given the weight given to both sides in the piece, I should probably have included some of his (rightful) condemnations of Hamas and Hezbollah in the excerpts printed. Indeed, the thought did occur to me as I posted the piece. My decision not to had to do with three factors - I've already explained the first; the second had to do with the fact that the piece seemed generally more focused on Israel than on Hamas and Hezbollah, evidenced by the title and the opening paragraphs; third was the 4-paragraph limit. So I chose just to excerpt the opening 3 paragraphs, highlighting a point that I think has been lost in the hysterical back-and-forth between those who are supporting Israel in this and the more hysterical opponents of Israel on this site who, while condemning Israel's actions, say little about the legitimate right of a nation for self-defense. My hope, of course, was that people would read the entire article. But, like I said, I probably did inadvertedly give an unfairly skewed overview of the article by choosing the excerpts that I did choose. Perhaps I ought to have included a message like "read on for more on Israel and for criticisms of Hamas and Hezbollah".

[pelsar]

7. fair enough...

just looking for an explanation from your POV.....nothing "hidden" in my question....thanks for the explanation (and effort)

[Violet_Crumble]

6. I read it this morning and thought it was a very good article...

It's beyond a doubt one of the better articles I've read for a while. I know you didn't ask me, but seeing those bolded words also jumped out at me when I read it in its unbolded version in the Guardian, I thought I'd just pop in and say that the reason they stood out for me wasn't that I was ignoring the condemnation of Hamas and Hezbollah, but because those words are exactly how I feel as well...

[Andromeda]

8. I disagree with the author...

It's like saying: "It's not what you say but how you say it." So if you say "get off my g-damn foot you ass****, it's better if you whisper it?

If you whisper, nobody can hear you.

[pelsar]

9. it was written clearly...

for me it wasnt a matter of agreeing or disagreeing...but it was one of the few articles that one comes across written clearly without the hyperbole....in that respect i find it a good starting point for a serious and realistic discussion.....