'The UN's humanitarian chief has accused Israel of "completely immoral" use of cluster bombs in Lebanon.' ⇒
30 August 2006, late afternoon
This is a post from my link log: If you click the title of this post you will be taken the web page I am discussing.
As opposed to suicide bombing which is completely moral?
by Sunny on August 31 2006, 11:15 am #
I didn’t know Hezbollah used suicide bombers during that last war. I can’t believe the papers didn’t report on that! And yes of course that would make anything Israel does OK, because one would expect a first-world country to aim to be morally equal to an armed paramilitary group.
by ramanan on August 31 2006, 12:49 pm #
Paramilitary? What Terrorist is too hard to spell?
by Sunny on August 31 2006, 10:41 pm #
People hold Israel to the same standards as a terrorist group. That better for you?
I think Hezbollah are a paramilitary group though. Terrorist is just a loaded and meaningless buzzword now. They are an armed group that spends most of their time fighting with the Israeli army. People don’t call the Israeli army terrorists even though they spend most of their time shooting civilians. Groups like Islamic Jihad, or Lashkar-e-Omar are better labeled terrorist organizations. Groups that exist solely to terrorize the civilian population. Labeling anyone and everyone a terrorist is stupid. I don't like Hezbollah or any of these ultra-conservative Islamic groups either, but labeling them all terrorists is tired.
by ramanan on September 1 2006, 2:41 am #
Exactly what are they fighting Israel for? And incidentally why are they cross with the Lebanese army?
A group that is well funded by Iran and Syria, two countries bent on the complete annihilation of Israel, skirmishes with Israeli border patrols at every opportunity while lobbing rockets on innocent civilians is not a terrorist organization? Well, I would be damned.
by Sunny on September 1 2006, 12:55 pm #
Just so I am clear, you’re OK with Israel using cluster bombs? Or are all these comments a “hey, look over there!” sort of thing? We can both think Hezbollah is really really bad. You can call them terrorists, and i'll call them paramilitaries: where does that leave Israel?
by ramanan on September 1 2006, 1:02 pm #
Hezbollah had violated the cease-fire four times, while Israel had done so nearly 70 times.
by ramanan on September 1 2006, 1:04 pm #
It’s amazing the difference a few words can make:
A group that is well funded by (the US), (a country) bent on the complete annihilation of (Arabs), skirmishes with Israeli border patrols at every opportunity while (dropping bombs) on innocent civilians is not a terrorist organization? Well, I would be damned.
by rishi on September 1 2006, 4:24 pm #
That’s called preemptive-defense. Or something equally Orwellian I am sure.
by ramanan on September 1 2006, 4:59 pm #
haha! those clever mid-east political wonks and their neverending ability to make the same joke over and over. just so original and funny every single time!
and again, what exactly is the beef that hezbollah has with Israel and Lebenon?
and now seriously, one of these days i half expect Israel to drop one of those American micro nuclear devices on the Mecca. it means fuck all to Israelis anyways.
by Sunny on September 1 2006, 9:40 pm #
What? Re-reading all your comments, i’m not exactly sure what you are arguing. Israel dropped cluster bombs, which are really the exact opposite of precision guided missiles, all over Lebanon. And it’s not like they didn’t know they were hitting civilians. What are you defending here?
by ramanan on September 2 2006, 2:19 am #
But Hezbollah targetting civilians with rockets is “completely moral”? What exactly are you defending there? If Israel is no better than the Hezbollah as Rishi pointed out, then why should they be judged to a different standard?
Why exactly is Hezbollah engaging Israel in the first place? Is Israel occupying any Lebanese territory? Let’s not forget that it was an Israeli reaction to an affront by the Hezbollah. And why do you keep dodging this question? Because there is no plausible reason why Hezbollah should be targetting Israel anymore?
Cluster bombs aside, if they really wanted to waste people, why would they discriminately attack airports, roadways and other commercial buildings? Many of the apartment blocks blown were actually Hezbollah financial locations and many of the “big holes” were actually targeted for bunkers that have been built by Hezbollah over the past few years but for some odd reason were not for civilian use.
Maybe if the Hezbollah or the Lebanese govt really cared for its citizens, they would actually make it safer by moving them or providing shelter. You know, like Israel does.
You remind me of a nun joke. Two nuns find a brutally beaten man in the gutter. One of them in complete shock remarks, “Imagine the despair of the man who did this”. That pretty much sums up the UN’s reaction.
Also tell me why there is only a condemnation of Israel? Why can the UN actually grow some balls and say, “Look, you are both bat-shit insane, just stop.” Why can’t they actually get serious and disarm the Hezbollah? Why can’t the UN for once, do its fucking job?
Sorry for the rant.
by Sunny on September 2 2006, 5:32 am #
I’m not going to jump into the original discussion…but I wanted to address the last paragraph of questions you had Sunny.
There are many reasons for the condemnation of Israel. It is a State for one. It’s actually practical to enforce UN resolutions against UN members.
State-sponsored military action/terrorism is actively sanctioned (meaning #1) for the very simple reason that the acts are carried out by a State; they get a free pass most of the time [see Sri Lanka]. So when the State commits acts that are particularly reviled, it is the duty of the UN (“doing its fucking job” as it were) to condemn those acts.
Why can’t they disarm Hezbollah? Well that’s another question entirely. People are calling for UN reformation that provides for a standing army (well, early phases would likely be a rapid deployment force; subsequent links seem broken). But until the UN becomes the literal global police, where the forces are deployed under direct UN authority, the UN can only act by quorum. And that’s unlikely to happen for a number of reasons I’m sure you’re familiar with. To start, because everyone dislikes the US’s rubber stamp veto over Israeli issues, everyone dislikes the US in general… etc.
I’d definitely make the argument that the UN has flaws and requires changes to keep it functioning as intended. But they are doing their job as far as their mandate will let them.
by haran on September 2 2006, 1:37 pm #
what do you think america’s “proportional response” would be if canada couldn’t keep a militant group under control that was consistently bombing montana and believed that it didn’t have the right to exist? what would be the “proportional response” if a militant group in michigan was consistently bombing scarborough and believed that it didn’t have the right to exist?
And I’m not saying this to be an asshole, I really mean it because I don’t know. I have no idea what I think would be reasonable if my mom’s home was getting bombed.
by award tour on September 3 2006, 10:13 am #
I don’t think bombing large tracts of Lebanon was reasonable in the least. And Hezbollah’s random rocket fire in to Israel came after Israel had started bombing the country. (Though I am pretty sure they launch rockets at military targets along the border—don’t have a reference for that though.) So their response was actually proportional to what Israel was doing. They were both killing civilians. I don’t think Israel’s bombing of Lebanon was a proportional response to the kidnapping of two soldiers. I think there are better ways to handle things.
When the FLQ were kidnapping people and causing a ruckus, Trudeau declared martial law and arrested tons of people. Most people thought this was a bit much, but i’d say that was a better way to deal with things than bombing Quebec city. The difference there though is that Hezbollah are much better armed than the FLQ, and that it was Canada that responded since this was all internal. Would the Lebanese government or army have helped Israel get their soldiers back? My guess is they both wouldn't, and couldn't. But since no attempt was made to see if they'd help, we'll never really know I guess.
by ramanan on September 3 2006, 12:46 pm #
I should point out this NYTimes Magazine article regarding China’s influence in the UN. Specifically, how they pretty much stopped the UN action on Darfur, and well, just about any action on a regime they had an interest in.
by haran on September 3 2006, 8:26 pm #