How is Israel/Lebanon different than US/Iraq?

[JAbuchan08]

The Bush administration's arguments for invasion of Iraq are close parallels to the arguments Israel has for invading Lebanon and Gaza. Taking out the "bad guy" (Saddam/Hezbollah/Hamas) is worth the death and destruction meted out on the civilian population. It is better to have a full out shooting war than low level hostilities/possible weapons programs. Making concessions (exit from Iraq, viable Palestinian state with full autonomy) is giving in to and rewarding terrorism. We have to protect our way of life (SUV ownership/Jewish majority civilization) even if it is (demographically/environmentally) unsustainable.
This is not to say that terrorist attacks should be ignored any more than we should have sat idly by while Saddam murdered his people. I have pointed out several times in this forum and others that I believe Saddam could have been deposed and replaced, no easily, not quickly, but with the sort of international co-operation and policy transparency which MAY have allowed a more peaceful transition. I still opposed this war from the very beginning, because it was obvious that the administration had an ulterior motive which precluded intellectual honesty and careful open deliberation.
Similarly I don't think that Israel should completely ignore terrorism, but they are going to have to fundamentally rethink their response to it. Though Israel talks of the Palestinian rejections of the peace process Israel has been just as intractable in their unwillingness to grant anything more than the most basic concessions to Palestinians. In the end Palestinians have no real land rights and no real water rights and their freedom will always always be held hostage to Israel's demand for security. The Palestinians are held to an impossible standard where they are responsible collectively for any terror attack on Israel, excusing Israel's denial of their sovereignty which makes it more, and not less difficult for the Palestinian government to prevent terror attacks.
Unfair as it may seem, Israel needs to learn that they, not the Palestinians are the key to making peace. Placing responsibility for peace on the shoulders of Palestinians and the Palestinians only falls into the same category as George Bush claiming that peace in Iraq depends on the insurgents putting down their arms. If the insurgents put down their arms certainly the war will end, but it is frankly stupid and unrealistic to think that we'll ever have peace if we aren't willing to make the first move on our own behalfs.

[saracat]

1. It isn't.

[AnOhioan]

2. Great post Kicked/Nominated

There is no difference. Bush and Olmert have damaged the reputation of their countries, dqmaged international relations and may well lead us on a path from which there is no return.

[movonne]

4. They will not be satisfied until we are all dead...They have wanted

to drop a nuke and this is their chance...I'm sick of U.S.A and Israel doing just as they please until this happens...AND IT WILL....

[ClintonTyree]

3. The "bush doctrine" in action.

Many of us stated at the beginning of the U.S. invasion of Iraq that this would give Israel, or any other country for that matter, carte blanch to invade any other country they deemed dangerous to their well being. There doesn't have to be any real proof, they just have to have "that feeling". The "bush doctrine" is now spreading just as we thought it would. Endless war against enemies, real or perceived. Ain't life grand? :eyes:

[JAbuchan08]

6. When we impose "collective punishment"

we are holding an entire country hostage to the actions of a few within that country.

[JAbuchan08]

5. I'm sorry for diverging too much into the Palestine/Israel issue

when I announced this post with Israel/Lebanon subject line. The principle is the same though. The conventional wisdom says that Hamas and Hezbollah are holding their countries hostage, but Israel holds Palestine/Lebanon hostage to Hamas and Hezbollah as well.

[mom cat]

7. The only difference that I see is that we have the largest military

in the world and Israel only has the fourth largest. Both countries are guilty of illegal wars, using tactics that cause greater civilian deaths, using atrocious weapons (and our DU laden cluster bombs are on the way to insure that Israel can join us in radiological bombing ... yes, dirty bombs).
Thanks for pointing out the parallels. Both countries are guilty of war crimes.

[iamjoy]

8. No One Questions The US Right To Exist

Lebanon is a home to people who don't think there should be an Israel.
It is place where some people see nothing wrong with governments controlled by Muslims, tolerate some controlled by Christians, but do not think Jews should have the same right.

[K8-EEE]

13. So Why Do They Have The Right To Exist Again?

Oh yeah cuz the UN gave them that right -- the UN which they now completely ignore while perpetuating these war crimes against innocent Lebanese civilians.

I never questioned their "right to exists" but right now I could care less. Tell everybody to get out and then let them fight over it...the ME is an unholy mess because of unending holy wars, I could care less who lives there.

[smoogatz]

9. Iraq never attacked us.

Nor did it threaten our borders--or the borders of any of our allies--with a military buildup of any kind at the time we attacked. also, I don't think Lebanon has a lot of oil.

[K8-EEE]

11. That's Because BushCo Stopped The MUSHROOM CLOUD!

Which Saddam was going to hit us with! He was just PLANNING to attack us. I guess you want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud! :sarcasm:

[oberliner]

10. Iraq doesn't share a border with the US?

The US wasn't occupying land that people in Iraq feel they must withdraw from?

No one from Iraq crossed over into the US and seized two American soldiers and killed several others?

The US was not frequently killing civilians in extra-governmental assassinations against members of an Iraqi political party?

Iraq did not have an armed militia at its border shooting rockets at American cities?

There are a myriad of critical differences.

[Karenina]

17. At some point you will come to realize

that the Israeli military culture in verbindung mit *MIC is NOT a good thing for any self-identified Jew, Israel itself or the world at large.

YEAH! LET'S STOMP THE SHIT OUTTA THOSE AY-RABS! SHOW 'EM WHO'S SUPERIOR!

It's a tactic that ain't gonna work. It never has, won't now and never will...

[JAbuchan08]

18. Oh, really?

"The US wasn't occupying land that people in Iraq feel they must withdraw from?"
They sure are now....

I was under the assumption that the majority of people here oppose the US invasion of Iraq because it is a heavy handed strike against terrorists that enacts a high casualty rate among civilians. I'm guessing 60-70% of DUers would have been Okay with deposing Saddam had it not been at such a high cost to civilians. Yet on the Israel/Lebanon issue people defend the same tactics that are the root cause of our failure in Iraq.
That is the parallel I was trying to draw out. It is a double standard to oppose these self-defeating policies when it comes to US policies and defend them when it comes to Israel. The proximity of the threat is no excuse for overreaction and the exercise of what can only be called a disproportionate and diplomatically bankrupt policy. The circumstances that you cite simply show that Israel and Lebanon are a microcosm of the wider world when it comes to the threat of terrorism.
What I hear when people defend the Israeli response to terror is that they are only willing to stick to their guns on the terror issue when it doesn't involve Israel.
You are right there are differences, but the fundamental questions are the same.

[WinkyDink]

12. Hezbollah exists; Iraqi WMD's did not.

[JAbuchan08]

19. But there were "weapons related program activities"

applying the one percent doctrine to weapons related program activities achieves the result we see in Iraq and applying the same zero-tolerance policy to the Hezbollah threat results in a wildly disproportionate and unnesscessary response.

[OneBlueSky]

14. the student learning from the master . . . n/t

.

[JAbuchan08]

15. I'm speaking obviously of BROAD parallels

the most striking being the belief that enormous civilian casualties are justified in the pursuit of the bad-guys.

[Rex]

16. IMO, Iraq is like Vietnam. Israel/Lebanon war is like Bosnia/Serbian

war.

[Vidar]

20. Good post

[Jim Lane]

21. Obvious differences

Israel hasn't tried to occupy all of Lebanon, effect "regime change", disband the Lebanese army, install a puppet government, close down Lebanese newspapers that print unflattering articles, etc.

People here criticize Israel's response as disproportionate, thus comparing it to a lesser response that would've accomplished Israel's objectives. I'm inclined to agree with that, but we can also reasonably compare what Israel actually did with the much more disproportionate response it would've made if it had been modeling its conduct on the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Another difference is the role of diplomacy. In 2003, many on the left criticized Bush for not working through the United Nations and for not giving nonmilitary means a chance to work. In the case of the Middle East, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah, was passed on September 2, 2004. Nearly two years later, Hezbollah was still attacking Israel. The Israelis allowed much more opportunity for a diplomatic solution than did Dim Son.