At what point is it reasonable to use military force?

[akushuki]

There has been a lot of anti-Israel posts on DU recently and I want to get a focal for what the general consensus is on when it is appropriate to use military force.

Surely the best means to solve conflict is through peaceful measures but what about those that can't be talked down? Appeasement failed on Hitler, and negotiating with terrorists is positive reinforcement.

So when is it appropriate? Is it only when a nation is attacked? How much force is warranted? Is it only as much power as necessary or are crippling blows justified? Can retaliation be against those that aid the terrorists or only the terrorists themselves? Is any action too far? Are any actions too short?

Shout it out DU, lets see where we stand.

[Terran1212]

1. "anti-Israel"?

I think the IDF's actions are ultimately going to be anti-Israel.

You certinaly don't think those of us standing against Bush's war are anti-American do you?

[akushuki]

6. I must have interpreted the posts here incorrectly...

I hear 'zionist invaders', 'fascist Israel', and a whole slew of others things...


How about this, I did say anti-israel istead of anti-semetic. I know, I'll say, 'Anti-Olmert' postings.

[cali]

51. When people here

refer to Israel as a rabid beast or cancerous blot, that's anti-Israel, and sorry it's just ugly.

[alarimer]

2. Seems like an overreaction on the part of Israel

but then they usually do. But then so do we- invading Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. The difference is, Israel was actually attacked.

You can debate whether or not their response was excessive or wrong or what, but there WAS provocation. Aside from being halfway around the world and not our business, Iraq never attacked us, ever.

[akushuki]

9. Yep,

And this thread was made to see whether DU thinks it was excessive, incorrect, or justified.

[MADem]

15. It surely helps to hit the ones who hit you, but the situation with

Hizbollah is a bit convoluted. They have a role in the government, but they aren't the government in its entirety.

It makes you wonder if the Israelis really don't know which targets to hit (could they, of all people, have such shitty HUMINT in the area--they're said to be the best in the region), or if they're playing dumb so that they can take out a few assets that could be strategically key should the government fall and chaos reign.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Certainly. I think a real argument can be made that Israel overreacted.

But that's different than saying that they should accept having rockets fired at them, or their soldiers kidnapped.

[akushuki]

21. Possible to go the other way also.

Lebanon has the anti-Israeli terrorist organization in their borders knowingly and willingly. Perhaps they should feel the wrath of the IDF?

[MADem]

22. Maybe not even overreacted, just went for the wrong targets

But then, they're in the same situation we are, with a guy with no substantive military experience at the helm, at the head diplomatic job, and in the defense ministry.

You know that shit has great potential to end badly. Ya gotta wonder who's pushing the plastic toys around the big map and planning what's gonna happen when?

[Terran1212]

38. Should the Lebanese accept having thousands of their citizens

in Israeli jails, contrary to international law? Should the Lebanese bomb Israeli airports and bridges and apartments too?

[Terran1212]

20. Israel has been freely bombing Gaza for months...

Before Hamas finally got sick of it and attacked a soldier outpost.

Wouldn' THAT be called provocation or are Palestinian lives not the same as Israeli ones?

[Warren DeMontague]

30. I guess you've forgotten about the rockets being fired from Gaza.

Is that provocation? Or just wacky kids having a good time?

Israel pulled out of Gaza. Great opportunity for the palestinians- for Hamas- to demonstrate how they could run the show. Organize. Improve the lot of their people. Get breakfast out to the kids, like the Black Panthers used to do.. that sort of thing.

Instead, they chose to believe that they had "won" when the IDF pulled out- and the next step was continuing on to a glorious conquering of Israel proper, complete with driving the Jews into the sea.

Look, Israel has made its share of mistakes and fuckups- no argument there- but the Palestinians have absolutely never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity for peace. Sorry, but that's the truth. Unless you define "peace" as a complete negation of Israel's right to exist, in which case, yes, they're still waiting on the same square deal they've been looking for for 60 years- namely, for the state of Israel to just "go away".

But most people seriously involved with the process- on both sides- realized years ago that the final deal which came quite close to being ratified in the last days of Clinton (when saner heads prevailed worldwide) was probably AWFULLY close to whatever the best, most likely arrangement for long-term stability would look like. After negotiating seemingly in good faith for years, Yasser Arafat decided to trash the deal at the last minute in 2000. Nice going.

No, Israel has not always done the right thing- but they DID spend an awful long time trying to find reasonable people on the other side with whom to come to a final peace settlement- unfortunately, I don't think there's much chance of that happening now, not any time soon.

[Terran1212]

37. How about some Facts:

Israel pulled out of Gaza, which they had illegally siezed for more than 30 years. They then continued to regularly bomb gaza and kidnap its citizens.
Hamas didn't retaliate.

Israeli bombs a Palestinian beach, slaughtering more than a dozen civilians.

Hamas retaliates against IDF SOLDIERS.

You can tell me all this rhetoric about the downtrodden oppressed Jewish people fighting for survival, but I see the Arabs being crushed into the sand here. Your rhetoric doesn't stand up to the facts.

And the 2000 agreements you refer to -- the Taba agreements -- were canceled by the US and Israeli government.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Facts? Those aren't facts.

Yasser Arafat was the sticking point in the 2000 negotiations. He walked away from the table. That's the truth.

The rockets have been coming from Gaza. From inside "Civilian" areas. Either Israel fights back, or they don't. I'm not justifying every retalitory action they have taken, or are alleged to have taken- that's not my job.

And I don't know what rhetoric you're talking about. Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

[akushuki]

48. illegally siezed?

Please, if given the chance Palestinians would have ran them right into the ocean. They want to play the game, they needed stakes, Israel out of the Middle East or further lost of their land.

[DELUSIONAL]

57. and the Palestinians weren't attacked?

Rather than work with democratically elected Hamas (bad bad people we are told by the US media) -- Israel decided to take out the Hamas leadership -- and managed to kill a whole lot of innocent civilians -- and then the matter of several thousand of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons.

This is a two way street -- both sides have behaved badly.

Only ONE soldier -- an Israeli soldier who is worth perhaps 1,000 "other" lives -- was taken.


I see two sides that need to stop right now and negotiate -- both sides have been aggressive.

If we keep track of aggressive behavior -- Israel is far more aggressive toward her neighbors.

These are the facts -- in terms of arms -- equipment and people killed -- Israel has used far more force and has kill far more people and has invaded the territory of other sovereign nations far more often than other nations have invaded Israel.

It is now the time for both sides to STOP -- and negotiate. This means that both sides will have to give a little to get a little.

It is so sad if yet another generation has to endure a childhood of war -- children should never have to suffer because of the stupidity of adults. And this will happen unless someone GROWS up and realizes that war is a losing proposition as soon as the first bullets and bombs are released.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. How far back do you want to go with this?

The Palestinians could have had a state in 1948 if they only could have accepted Israel's existence.

And repeatedly, since then. Regrettably, they continually choose war, and their lot gets progressively worse.

I agree, they all need to stop fighting. But the "bad, bad" Hamas had an opportunity to show they could effectively govern. Instead, they made firing rockets into Israel a #1 priority. Before Israel decided to "take out" their leadership. Aren't rockets an attack, too?

That's right- war is a losing proposition. And Israel- most Israelis- were very ready to establish permanent peace in 2000, as they have been many times before. Unfortunately, the Palestinian leadership wasn't interested in real peace, and walked away from the table.

Neither side is perfect, but to cast this as "Israeli aggression" and nothing more is ridiculous and shows very little understanding of history. Aggresive against neighbors? Sure, if fighting back against people who are aiming for your total destruction can be called "aggression". How do you think the occupation come about in the first place? Who were the people who didn't accept the "green line" back in 1967? (hint; it wasn't the Israelis)

What do you suppose would have happened in '67 if, rather than occupying the West Bank, Gaza, and the Sinai- which they gave back when they had a legitimate, peace-interested partner to negotiate with- the surrounding Arab nations had won?

[BlooInBloo]

12. I would hesitate to say that unless...

... damn near the whole world had been trying to eliminate me from the face of the earth for about 2000 years.

What's next - those oversensitive negroes? Overly emotional women? Sheesh.

[Terran1212]

24. The Holocaust on Jews doesn't justify the Diaspora of Palestinians

Stop playing the pity card, please. That history has nothing to do with what Israel currently does to the Arabs, which Nelson Mandela has called racist and like the Apartheid.

[BlooInBloo]

28. Weeelllll.... There's not much to say to that... LOL!

[Terran1212]

36. If a Native American came to your house and shot your wife

and took the place over, and then said it was all good because he's so oppressed historically -- I mean how much sense does THAT make?

[akushuki]

29. Perhaps the wars where the Jews fought off multiple nations by themselves

without outside assistance to win the right to exist and then the repeated attacks and hostile actions from all sides of Israel justifies it?

[Terran1212]

35. "Multiple nations" of rock throwers of desert guerillas

who they ran into slums and refugee camps to be slaughtered.

Israel isn't the underdog. It's the most dangerous imperial force in the region.

[akushuki]

42. Israelies making guns in basements is an overwhelming force?

Israel fought for its right to survive.

read up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

[Terran1212]

46. They did the same things the Palestinians are doing

They killed people in their sleep, bombed civilians in crowded places, etc.

[Common Sense Party]

59. Imperial? Pretty damned small empire, if you ask me. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Let's cut to the chase- in your mind, does the nation of Israel as it

currently stands have a right to exist?

Yes? No?

[Terran1212]

34. It's funny you have that religious fundie thing in your signature

And are about to use the number one fundie claim: that all of us standing for arab rights and against Israeli oppression are secret Jihadists out to make Israel disappear.

Yes, Israel has a right to exist along its 1967 borders and the International Line.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. It was just a question, Jack. I find fundies of ALL stripes tiresome.

And how come the 1967 borders are no longer in play? What was the event which happened to cause Israel to cross the "Green line", in the first place?

I agree with you- any final settlement ought to hew fairly close to the green line. But it's worth noting that the Palestinians could have had MORE than that if they had accepted Israel's right to exist in 1948. And as I alluded above, If in 1967, the surrounding Arab states hadn't decided to try to wipe Israel off the map, the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank wouldn't have taken place.

Egypt decided to deal with Israel in a reasonable fashion, and they got back the Sinai. If the Palestinians had tried a little harder to find a peaceful solution, and a little less hard to pick fights, it's pretty clear to me that they would be in a MUCH better position, today.

[Terran1212]

41. The Palestinians maintained the ceasfire while Israel flaunted it

Hamas played nice and Israel continued to regularly bomb the Gaza and continue expansion in the West Bank -- both illegal by international law.

Playing nice doesn't work. You have to fight for your freedom.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Well, fighting in 1948 was a dumb idea for the Palestinians.

Fighting in 1967 was a dumb idea for the Palestinians.

Not accepting a pretty damn good final deal in 2000? Yep. Dumb idea.

Each time they decide to fight for their "freedom", their lot gets worse. Ghandi, OTOH, achieved an awful lot by "playing nice".

[Terran1212]

47. Israel and US canceled "Oslo II" - Taba agreements

That's in the official record, in the Israeli press. You can claim it was the Palestinians all you want, it won't make it more true.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. They canceled it because Yasser Arafat stuck the "right of return"

in as the last minute sticking point. I'm sure you know that, if you aspire to be informed about the situation and the area. Everyone involved knew damn well that Israel -a nation of some 6 million- wasn't going to take 3 million Palestinians into Israel. That would mark the end of Israel as a nation. It would be like me negotiating with you to buy your car, and after we got to me offering $5500, and you offering 6 Grand, all of a sudden you demanded to take a member of my family along with it.

That's not negotiation, that's jerking someone else's chain. And it is all Arafat will be remembered for- fucking up a perfectly good opportunity for his people.

But lets see your sources. American Press, Israeli press, whatever.

[BlooInBloo]

52. Um, I don't think "flaunted" means what you think it does....

... Maybe you'll want to consult your English primer - the section labelled "flouted"?

[akushuki]

55. Flaunt: the act of displaying something ostentatiously; "his behavior was

an outrageous flaunt" v : display proudly; act ostentatiously or pretentiously; "he showed off his new sports car" -dictionary.com

I think it may be correct usage but perhaps he could have found a better verb?

[Massacure]

3. Every situation is different.

But Israel is just escalating an endless waltz.

[demosincebirth]

4. I'm not a Jew, but I do understand when the Jews say "Never again."

[akushuki]

13. From what I understand Israel keeps the nukes to make 'Never again' happen

[TomInTib]

7. 'Force application' versus 'collective punishment'

big difference.

[Webster Green]

8. If I lived under Israeli occupation...

...I would be trying to kill those mutherfuckers, and I would probably think of myself as a "freedom fighter", not a terrorist.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. They pulled out of Lebanon. They pulled out of Gaza.

So why is the first thing the "freedom fighters" get started with, cross-border attacks and provocation?

This wasn't about "resisting occupation", the occupation was OVER. It's not, anymore, because some geniuses decided they needed to keep poking that sleeping dog next door.

Please. Where's the justification, or the logic, behind that?

[Terran1212]

39. They still control parts of Syria and the West Bank

And have cordoned off much of Gaza after "withdrawing" with the illegal wall.

And they continued to attack Gaza almost daily and kidnap its citizens and jail them illegally.

And Hamas didn't retaliate until Israel bombed a beach.

So who exactly is the peaceful one here?

[Warren DeMontague]

49. How about backing some of this stuff up with news sources.

Really. Israel got out of Gaza. How is it "cordoned off?" It's a small square. You mean cordoned off, like Palestinians can't walk out into Israel? That's called a border. If the Palestinians really want a country, they're going to need borders.

And I'd like to see where you get that Hamas did nothing provocative- no rockets, nothing- until Israel allegedly bombed that beach.

[mike_c]

10. "military force" covers a lot of ground....

Increasing the security of vulnerable patrols is perhaps an appropriate military response when soldiers are captured by hostile forces. Overwhelming collective punishment against civilian populations and civil infrastructure is disproportionate at best.

[Warpy]

11. You can't fight terror gangs with a military!

Israel would have had much better luck negotiating with the government of Lebanon, such as it is. The Lebanese had their country wrecked once by warfare among the Palestinian Arabs, Israel and Syria. Undoubtedly they'd have cooperated fully in trying to track down the band of thugs responsible for the latest capture and forcing them to cough up the two soldiers.

Understand that Lebanon has been rebuilding for only 15 years or so after being totally flattened by two decades of warfare.

The puckerfaced assertion "we don't negotiate with terrorists" has apparently been applied to a coalition government of Muslims and Christians who have nothing to do with the capture and who have just recently been able to expel the Syrians once and for all.

Israel has screwed the pooch on this one. It is a foreign policy blunder one expects of neocons in Washington.

[niallmac]

14. We bear a responsibility.

Israel is in a tough spot and so are the Arabs.
One terrible failure in all this as I see it is the failure of the U.S.
to be a fair and equal broker in this Middle Eastern muddle that the West created
to no small degree.

If the U.S. made it clear to both sides that war was not an option then we could give peace a
chance.

Instead we make money from selling weapons of death. We align ourselves with one side instead of
insuring our neutrality as an honest broker.

I am sick to death of all the death and suffering.
What a crime the power of my country is not used for the betterment of humanity.

[akushuki]

19. Do we really bear a responsibilty for the actions of others?

The US playing the big brother and dabbling in others affairs have caused much of the resentment from the rest of the world. If anything, the UN needs to be rebuilt to be efficient and establish world consensus.

[niallmac]

27. In as much as Truman agreed with Dulles to

go along with creating Israel as a nation state without so much
as a long view consideration of the consequences why indeed I
do think we bear a responsibility.

Our arms and money could be given with strings attached to peace
promoting provisos at the very least.

On edit may I refer also to the failure of Western nations, US of A included to
accept fully the misery laden Jewish refugees of fascism WW II.

[akushuki]

32. I could agree with that...

Israel would have a fine time with their amazing tank recovery without us funding them.

[conflictgirl]

18. For the most part, only when we're attacked

Or, in the instance of WWII, when we are in coalition with other powerful nations (in contrast to the "coalition of the willing" :eyes:) to quell an out-of-control leader in another country committing mass genocide.

Of course, by that definition, there are many places we should have had a far greater military presence. But those places don't have oil.

[jerry611]

23. Israel has been attacked...hundreds of times

Yet we keep telling them to stand down.

[akushuki]

26. Israel does what it wants.

You gonna stop them? I dont think anyone really could at this point.

[conflictgirl]

33. Is someone committing genocide against the Israeli people?

I admittedly don't know as much about the Israel issue as some posters here, but based on what I do know, I don't think I could compare Israel to, say, Sudan. If there have been hundreds of thousands of people killed, then we definitely should be fighting a war there. And we should have the assistance of other countries in the matter.

I am a pacifist by principle, but am pragmatic enough to understand that sometimes war is a necessary evil. But I have no idea why our country chooses to fight the wars it does, and choose NOT to fight in so many places where it seems so much more necessary.

[jerry611]

50. So there must be genocide in order to justify a war?

[conflictgirl]

58. By my definition

I am a pacifist and it is difficult for me to justify war. As I stated in my previous post, I personally can understand war when we're attacked, or in a coordinated response with other nations against actions such as genocide. I am so far unaware of events in Israel that merit that sort of response.

Quite obviously many others support war for a wider variety of reasons than I do.

[kentuck]

25. Should a "military force" be used to protect and defend or....

should it be used to kill as many of the enemy as possible? Should we take no prisoners? Why don't we just kill them all? For what reason would we save the lives of our enemies? We take prisoners because it is about us - as much as it is about them.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[adwon]

54. My answers

1. Force is reasonable when your interests require it. This is a vague standard, admittedly. It does carry some caveats. Force is not used on a whim. Force is used for clear reasons. When talking about nation-states, you go to war, or some variant thereof, only when arms is the best means to attain a better state of the peace (if only from your perspective). If you can't objectively justify the use of force or its aims, then it's clearly not the best means at that point.

2. The level of force is defined by the circumstances. It's not necessary to swat a fly with a Buick. A flyswatter will do quite nicely. Similarly, it's rarely reasonable to use ridiculously overwhelming force for the simple fact that all wars end. You have to look beyond the war to the peace afterward. How many loose ends do you want to create?

3. There is such a thing as too much. The destruction of Lidice is the first thing that comes to mind. Too little? The list of the defeated is the best source to consult.

4. Churchill's line that "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war" is true as a general rule. It should be abandoned only when it becomes clear that your interests are being hurt by continuing negotiations. Even at that point, a further decision is necessary. Will the use of force clear the path to my goals or it will it muddle them further?

[akushuki]

56. Thanks! You're the only person who answered my questions! :)

:)

[Warren DeMontague]

62. Ah. Welcome to DU.

It's like herding cats, man.

[JackDragna]

60. Here's my general guidelines.

1. The nation is attacked by a foreign power.

2. One of the nation's allies is attacked, unprovoked, by a foreign power.

3. A humanitarian crisis looms with the potential to kill thousands, with military force being required to secure the area so aid can be delivered and/or a butchering foreign army can be stopped.

All of these situations must be handled very delicately, however. You bring up Hitler and "negotiating with terrorists," but one never knows who is reasonable and who isn't until one tries diplomacy. The problem today is that few nations outside the west invest real time and effort in diplomacy or even training skilled diplomats. The end result is beligerence and a general lack of internationanl understanding.