The "right to defend itself" argument is a deflection

[CuteNFuzzy]

Current condemnation of Israeli atrocities has nothing at all to do with any "right to defend itself" or a "right to respond" to acts of aggression. Of course Israel holds these rights, just like any other nation can claim the right. Nobody is saying they don't (at least not that I've come across).

The issue is that they're taking out civilians and bombing neighborhoods and deliberately going after civilian targets. Striking at civilian infrastructure, destroying nearly anything in sight, then claiming there are Hizballah militants nearby. That is bullshit. Israel is engaging in precisely the same acts of hate that it claims it is defending itself against. THIS is the problem. Some actions taken are defensive, but the vast majority of the aggression is retaliatory strikes, with no other purpose than to make the "enemy" feel some pain, tit-for-tat reprisals, and mostly against civilians. There is no other way to explain the fact that 200+ are now dead with under 20 of them being non-civilian.

Let's say there is a group of 250 civilians, men women and children, all gathered together in a park. 20 of the 250 are members of a militant group. Would you fire your missile directly into that park? Regardless of the children, the babies, the mothers with their strollers?

"Moral high ground" and a "right to defend itself" makes no difference whatsover. Maybe Israel has some moral high ground, maybe it doesn't - Moral high ground is no justification for going after civilians. And make no mistake about it - Israel IS going after Lebanese civilians, deliberately, and intentionally.

And if Israel did at one time have moral high ground, they cannot claim it now. The actions taken in Lebanon are reckless, ruthless, criminal, and every bit as terrorist in nature as any act of terrorism committed by Hizballah.

The rampage has to stop. Of course Israel has every right to defend itself. But they do not have a right to participate in the same terrorism it claims it is fighting so valiantly against.

[BushOut06]

1. Bullshit? How convenient...

I suppose you know the locations of all Hezbollah safe houses, bases, etc? I've said this before, it's starting to sound like a broken record. Groups like Hezbollah deliberately place themselves in densely populated areas. Why? Because they know that ANY attack against them will wind up killing innocent civilians as well! Then people like you turn around and claim that any and all reports of Hezbollah being in those areas is bullshit. Why? Because the evil Israel said so, and nothing they say can be trusted. Which makes it even easier to bash away at the Zionist regime.

[CuteNFuzzy]

4. So you are saying

That Israel has clean hands of all civilian deaths.

Sorry I don't buy that one bit.

[BushOut06]

6. I'm not saying that...

But this is war. And the old cliche "War is Hell" applies. You're implying that Israel just makes up bullshit as it goes along, claiming that Hezbollah targets are located in civilian areas. I'm sure that if Israel had a chance, it would much rather take out the entire Hezbollah organization without causing any civilian casualties. POOF - just like that, all Hezbollah members dead, but only Hezbollah. And yes, it's possible that Israel goes a little overboard sometimes. Funny how DECADES of being targeted for destruction by groups like Hezbollah, and being surrounded by countries that would love to see you annihilated, will do that to you.

[CuteNFuzzy]

8. When Hizballah murders Israeli civilians

with rocket attacks, do you justify that by saying "well Hizb goes a little overboard sometimes"?

[Camp_Democracy]

9. rocket attacks?

Do you think that Israel has satellite technology? Do they have any way of knowing where the attacks are being instigated? Are they bombing the areas where the rocket attacks are coming from? Not according to what I have read.

[BushOut06]

17. Not according to what you've read?

What have you been reading? Well, if you limit your reading to what you see here on the DU forums, then you might reach that conclusion. But Israel HAS been targeting the locations where the rockets are being fired from. They're also targeting other Hezbollah locations as well.

[Solo_in_MD]

18. Then you need to do more reading

Yes, Israel has satellites. See here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12481685/ They also have a homegrown space industry: http://www.israeli-weapons.com/israeli_weapons_space_systems.html

The problem is even with real time satellite imagery, which they most likely do not have, its not possible to strike a launcher prior to launch. Be glad to instruct you on the specifics, but if you think about it, that much is obvious.

Israel is using radar to track launches. This is not a new technology, been around since the 70s. Look here to see the US version. http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/surveillance/raytheon/ Not clear if they are using Firefinder or something home grown. It allows the IDF to give 20 seconds warning or so to the target area and locate the launch site. BTW, that is outstandingly fast. So yes Israel does know where a launch came from.

Israel is leafleting launch and storage areas before they attack. I assume they are also watching for attempts to move ordinance out before they are bombed, and if seen strike immediately (sucker punches are fair game in war)

So yes, the IDF does know where attacks came from and is reportedly striking those areas.

[BushOut06]

15. Who is Hezbollah targeting?

Hmmmm - seems to me that Hezbollah almost exclusively directs their attacks against civilian targets. But hell, they're only Jews, who gives a shit. They shouldn't even be there to begin with. Maybe Iran's leader is right. Israel should pack up and move back to Europe.

[Solo_in_MD]

19. No one in particular

since rockets are unguided area weapons. Has Hezbollah hit ANY military target with their rockets? I know they hit a gunboat with the C-802 missile.

[CuteNFuzzy]

24. Who is Israel targeting?

So it seems to you that Hizb targets civilians. Got that, and I'm against it too.

But the topic here is Israeli tactics and current aggression. Again, 200+ deaths now, and under 20 are non-civilian. Now if you believe everything handed down to us in the major media reports, Israel is out there targeting Hizballah militants while carefully doing all they can to avoid civilian casualties. But the facts tell a completely different story, just the opposite actually. In fact, how can it possibly be the case that civilian deaths are carefully avoided, with so little non-civilian deaths and so many civilians killed?

One reasonable question one might ask is if Israel is actually targeting civilians with Hizb militant deaths being the unintended consequences of those actions.

How do you explain over 200 deaths with under 20 being non-civilian? Mistakes? Collateral damage?

No. Israel is out there targeting civilians. At the very least, there is such extreme recklessness that it doesn't even matter who or what is being targeted. The ratio of civilian to non-civilian killings is totally beyond justification.

[Igel]

33. As of yesterday Israel said it had staged 2000 sorties

with 1000 targets hit.

Deaths were under 250. Some of the civilians clustered into groups of 10 or 20. So the number of targets is pushing towards an order of magnitude larger than the number of civilian "incidents" (for lack of a better word; multiple civilians could be killed in an incident).

And the number of sorties was twice the number of incidents involving civilians. The Israelis are doing a very, very crappy job of targeting, in this case. You'd think with dense population centers they'd be able to do a better job if that was their goal. Esp. if they have satelite targeting.

Thing is, the non-civilians know where all the possible targets are; if a bomber flew over, they'd know to scram. The civilians wouldn't.

The other problem is that identifying a civilian versus non-civilian, even on the ground, is difficult. If your brother was killed by the Israelis, would you tell Reuters that he was a militant, and therefore a legitimate target?

[gaspee]

25. Oh please!

[jberryhill]

26. "Israel should pack up and move back to Europe."

What was that you said above about people who deliberately put themselves in harm's way?

[Igel]

34. And Ethiopa and the US and Morocco and Yemen

and Iraq and ... Jerusalem.

[Endangered Specie]

14. Wonder how you would react if Bush said

'But this is war. And the old cliche "War is Hell" applies.' to gloss over 'unintended' civilian deaths in Iraq?

[babylonsister]

2. Israel is not being moral, and is instigating war. Not cool. I'm

angry.

[BushOut06]

7. Yawn....

Do you really think that if Hezbollah had not attacked Israel, that Israel would have just decided to bomb the shit out of Lebanon for the hell of it?

"What do you want to do today?"

"Oh, I don't know, I'm bored. Why don't we bomb some random neighborhoods in Beirut, and send some troops across the border and see how many people we can kill today?"

[Endangered Specie]

11. no, but thats totally irrelevant.

[Camp_Democracy]

13. what if we just changed a few words...

Do you really think that if the Iraqis(Hezbollah) had not attacked the US(Israel), that the US(Israel) would have just decided to bomb the shit out of Iraq(Lebanon) for the hell of it?

[BushOut06]

16. Two totally different situations

Ah, but there's the rub, isn't it? Hezbollah DID attack Israel. So trying to compare the Israeli/Hezbollah situation to whatever Bush does with Iraq is totally irrelevant.

Notice that before Hezbollah decided to attack, Israel was NOT bombing Beirut.

[Camp_Democracy]

3. Israel is not a victim

"they're taking out civilians and bombing neighborhoods and deliberately going after civilian targets. Striking at civilian infrastructure, destroying nearly anything in sight"

This response makes no sense. How is this finding the kidnapped Israelis? If they think the Hezbollah took them to Lebanon, doesn't that mean they are risking killing the people they are trying to save?

[CuteNFuzzy]

5. You think this is only about rescuing abducted soldiers?

[Camp_Democracy]

10. I think it is about ALOT more than that

the soldiers were just the excuse

[Igel]

35. Obviously you've been reading what Olmert's said.

Parroting Israeli talking points like that. Except "excuse" was more along the lines of "last straw."

But the point--that Israel has more in mind than simply getting the two soldiers back--was public knowledge from day one. They've left no room for doubt what their goals are.

[rucky]

12. Why do you love Hezbollah?

kidding.

[Deja Q]

36. NOBODY loves hezbollah.

I do not condone the acts of terrorists either.

[vickitulsa]

20. I'm saddened to see another of these threads made it to the Greatest

page. *Sigh*

Why do my fellow DUers, normally such an intelligent and reasonable people with good hearts and a common cause, see fit to put up OP's that are clearly going to provoke arguments about an already-divisive issue here?

I just don't get it. Haven't we done enough bloodletting (verbally of course) within our own ranks here in the dozens and dozens of threads on the Israel/Lebanon events already?

Can't we EVER get past the namecalling and patently ridiculous accusations of each other, of our fellow DUers, to a reasonable discussion of the issues and events in the Middle East? Or is it simply that we are all too emotional to attain that standard that we usually reach quite easily?

I've about decided that the only way to respond to such provocative OP's is to make blatant, brazen, daring peacemaking efforts so that my friends here at DU -- people I have come to see as my friends -- can see how pointless all this childish arguing and shouting is. The namecalling is the worst!

I've been here long enough to read plenty of flamefests, though I don't linger in them or participate -- and I don't read many of them, it's just not a pleasant experience. I'd have to be a masochist.

I'm not a masochist, and I am getting a decidedly uncomfortable feeling lately as I log onto DU and see all the flames blazing on the topic of Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah. The events are dramatic -- but predictions of a certain slide into World War Three have proven overblown, right? Emotions are running high here, but we should stop exercising them, end all the highly charged venting, and ease up a little bit! IMO we should have settled down somewhat by now. It's been a week, the fighting is still confined to two countries, and I'd think we could be discussing the issues without so much ranting and insulting fellow DUers by this time....

PEACE, my friends, for goodness sake, PEACE! If not on earth, at least among ourselves.

[Clarkie1]

21. Are you suggesting...

That if we cannot be the instruments of peace in the Middle East, we can at least be instruments of peace here on DU?

[vickitulsa]

27. YES! That's it exactly!

And maybe, just maybe, if we can discuss the issues involved and even argue about them if we need to but in a civil tone, we can make DU an even stronger voice for right (not THE right, but right as in righteous, good, positive, correct or accurate, all those).

And btw, I absolutely LOVED Gen. Clark's suggestions on that nasty Bill O'Lielly's show that you (or another Clarkie?) posted, and I responded to it. Good for General Clark!

Wish more people, especially those in power, would listen to him!

[CuteNFuzzy]

32. civil tone

Interesting you mention that because Clarkie1 and I were debating the Israel/Lebanon topic in another thread 2 days ago and I actually commented that I appreciated the civil tone. I have no qualms with anyone I've come across here; I understand it's a difficult, complicated topic to talk about.

However OTOH, over 250 people have been killed now and the tit-for-tat strikes against each other continue. The latest from the BBC:

-------
Dozens die in fresh Lebanon raids

At least 55 civilians have been killed in Israeli air strikes in Lebanon.

The latest raids hit targets in the east and south of Lebanon, where at least 12 people died in one village.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5193662.stm
-------


Now I understand you may not like to be dragged in to this, but may I just ask you what you think of these raids and killings? Please note that I am against the atrocities by both sides. I make no excuse for either Hizballah attacks or for the Israeli ones. I feel as much compassion and anger about murders of Israeli civilians as I do towards the killings of Lebanese. But we (the U.S.) is supporting Israel very strongly, and we are turning a blind eye towards the aggression. And thus you find the topic of my original post here, in which I state that the "right to defend itself" argument just doesn't hold water any more. These killings by Israel are not just defensive measures. They are hateful reprisals and vengeance attacks, which are completely unjustified.

I see in the BBC article that 280 Lebanese are now dead, most of them civilians. How can this possibly be justified? I would like to hear your feelings on that, thanks.

[vickitulsa]

37. The heat here in OK is about to crash my PC again for today, but

I wanted to reply quickly before I have to turn it off until midnight or thereabouts.

I feel just as you do. I am greatly disturbed by the atrocities committed by both sides. And I do believe both sides are committing them.

Feuds dating back to what we call ancient history ... causing mindless, hate-filled slaughter and atrocities ... all of it makes me sick.

More later, maybe, or in other threads down the road. Losing my PC for another day and evening due to temps well over 100 degrees and a heat index of about 115!

[Clarkie1]

38. .

:toast:

[CuteNFuzzy]

22. I can appreciate the sentiments

What part of my post was untrue however?

[vickitulsa]

30. I'm really glad to hear you appreciate the sentiments.

That's a start!

And I didn't say you were posting untruths, I only objected to any provocative language that was sure to turn your thread into, at the very least, a big argument and at the worst, just one more flamefest that accomplishes nothing -- except perhaps for DUers to vent yet more than they have been doing already!

I have been hesitant to even reply to criticisms of Israel's actions, ANY of their actions, because I know I'll be attacked, sometimes viciously and wholly unfairly, by those who are really really angry at Israel. I've dared a couple of times, but it didn't go very well.

On the other side of that coin, I have also held back from expressing my own criticisms of Israel because I don't want to be aligned with some here who rant and curse and steam irrationally over Israel's actions. Even if Israel "deserves it," I just don't see how deepening the rifts here on DU among members who in other unrelated threads might be firm friends is going to help the situation in any way. It won't solve any problems, or move us toward a useful concensus, or help us form ideas that might actually achieve PEACE.

Fact is, I DO have criticisms of Israel. But I also have criticisms of Lebanon (not so many there though), the major powers and other countries who should be doing more than they are to end hostilities, AND Hezbollah, but I haven't voiced them here. I don't want to be aligned with those DUers who go overboard in their unconditional and unyielding condemnations of ANY of the involved parties in the Middle East!

If Israel can "go overboard" or "overreact" to provocative actions by Hezbollah, isn't it just possible some individuals here at DU could be doing the same thing in their discussions of those events?

Your OP was actually not as radical or provocative as many I've seen in this wonderful venue we have called DU, but it seemed to be one that followed the trend here lately. Perhaps I spoke out this time (though it isn't the first time I've done so) in part because you seemed somewhat LESS determined to spout invective and more inclined to at least TRY to discuss the issues -- as have some others who have responded in this thread. I do appreciate that!, and I guess I just thought perhaps here was a good place to speak out, to TRY to move us all toward a more gracious and civil tone and more sensible language as we talk about these very disturbing events in the Middle East....

Isn't it possible for ALL of us to do a lot better in choosing our language? Couldn't we ease off on the one-sided condemnations and expressions of anger, and examine the events and issues in a more balanced way?

I don't expect unrealistic behavior from anyone, just a toning down of the unproductive, divisive language, the namecalling and personal attacks, and the fiery flamefests that may leave lasting wounds among our fellow DUers. Surely that's not too much to ask?

[rman]

23. g*d forbid we'd have arguments over important issues

I wonder if you have responded in like manner to OPs which assert that an unspecified number of DUers claim that Israel does not have the right to defend itself.

[vickitulsa]

31. Rman, you actually made me laugh! Feebly, perhaps, but at least

I laughed, just to think of the very IDEA of DUers not arguing over important issues! :)

We all know that ain't gonna happen; we know arguments are pretty much a staple of a discussion group centered on politics ... and in fact it's not the "arguments" that bother me. It's the over-the-top rhetoric, the deepdown bitterness and outright rage that is let loose here way too much recently. It's the one-sidedness of so many of the arguments that disturbs me. And worst of all it's the namecalling and personal attacks that surely don't accomplish anything good and may be causing irreparable emotional damage to other DUers.

These unchecked "negatives" can do more harm than we realize sometimes, I think.

I don't recall your stand on the events in Israel/Lebanon, rman, but I recognize your handle and in my somewhat imperfect memory banks I have you in the category that might be headed: "Writes good posts, intelligent, worth reading."

That's very general, of course, but I thought I'd mention it so you'd maybe understand a little better how I think. There are a great many DUers in that particular category in my mind, and I do know there are some in that list with whom I've disagreed quite strongly at times, while on other topics I saw their thinking as positively brilliant and, as the Brits would say, "spot on"!

I suspect many DUers have similar mental "lists" like mine or categorize other members in some way, just to help them sort out who's who and remember the various personalities we encounter regularly here. Yes?

And YES, to answer your question, I have responded "in like manner" several times when the shoe was on the other foot, so to speak. I didn't decide to speak out as I did in this thread solely because of the "side" the OP's writer was on. (Sorry for the awkward wording there, but I hope you get the idea.)

I'm so distressed by the overheated exchanges and resulting near-chaos that seem to be "taking over" at DU way more than "normal" that I've decided to back way off from trying to argue specific points with my friends on these Israel-related issues. Rather I'm trying what I thought might be a more helpful approach, "urging restraint," as it were, and hopeful of restoring a somewhat more civil tone in our discourse even on this hot-button issue. That way, perhaps we can return to discussing the issues related to the current events in the ME again with a lot better result!

Is my shift in tack not working?

[mmonk]

28. Everybody has the basic right to self defense.

Everybody also has the right to criticize the actions of combatants. Too bad others that may be able to help quell escalation are silent. Everybody has the right to criticize do nothing spectators as well.

[theHandpuppet]

29. Well the trick to that is....

... drop thousands of leaflets on Lebanese neigborhoods telling the residents to flee while you bomb the roads and airports and blockade the ports. That way when you kill them in their beds you can say, "Well, they were warned!"