WWWIII? Or Just the Middle-East Perpetual Motion Machine?
(great cartoon, besides the fact that arafat died last year)
Most political, economical, cultural issues are extremely complex and hard to fully understand. I like to think that I do a pretty good job at gaining a satisfactory understanding of most of the ones that I'm interested in. This Middle-East-Israeli-Palestinian-Lebanese-Hizbullah-Hamas--Iran and Syria conflict that just erupted a week ago is a LITTLE hard to understand. It seems like most of the people that already think they have it all figured out are the ones that only look at it from one side's point of view.
Extremely Quick Summary: (if you want detail... google it, sit back and start reading): This conflict really stems from the obvious religious tension between the Jewish people and the Islamic extremists representing the Arab people in the region, who interpret the Quran in a way that condones violence against all people that are not Islamic. Historically, this conflict has been going on for a thousand years or more.
After WWII and the horrible acts of the Nazi's against the Jews in the Holocaust, the United Nation's attempted to create a nation specifically for the Jewish people. Israel was formed in the land of Palestine, which is regarded by Jews, Muslims and Christians to be the holiest land on Earth. Depending on who you ask, this was done with or without the consent of the Arab people who were already settled there (from what I've found, the U.N. proposal to create two states, one Jewish and one Arab, was rejected by the majority of the Arab population at the time). This act by the United Nations in 1948 triggered a war against the nation of Israel and has fueled half a generation of anti-semitism and hatred for the western world in the middle-east. This fundamentalist attitude towards Israel has boiled over on and off several times since 1948 in the form of military conflict.
The biggest problem that has faced the nation of Israel is that it's surrounded on all sides, by people bent on it's destruction.
One thing that is clear is that the two extreme Islamic groups, Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas (the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people) started this particular conflict.
From Newsweek:
On June 25th, a corporal in the Israeli army was taken hostage by Hamas guerillas. Then [the violence] exploded across the region last week after Hizbullah guerillas crossed into Israel to snatch two more soldiers, killing eight. Israel's reaction was swift, brutal and massive. Its forces took the whole of Lebanon hostage, treating the state on its northern border just as it treated the Palestinian terroritory to its south, tearing apart highways, blockading porst, blowing up the runways and fuel dumps at Beirut's international airport-setting out not only to free the hostages but to eliminate Hizbullah once and for all.
Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah: "You wanted an open war, and we are ready for an open war... Our homes will not be the only ones to be destroyed, our children will not be the only ones to die. You wanted to change the rules of the game? You don't know who you're fighting."
Hizbullah has been firing rocket missiles into Israel, killing innocent civilians (rockets that were given to them by Iran), and Israeli bombing, which has been much more intense, has caused even more destruction. --it should also be noted that Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the world. Their bombs are our bombs in the minds of the muslim world.
Death Toll As of Today
In Lebanon: 244
In Israel: 24
I'm not a military commander, but the death toll so far seems to be just a tad bit unbalanced. Israel absolutely has a right to defend itself, but how far do you have to go before justice is served?
New York Times: Israeli Troops Battle Hezbollah
International pressure mounted on Israel and the United States to agree to a cease-fire.
The destruction and rising death toll deepened a rift between the U.S. and Europe. The Bush administration is giving Israel a tacit green light to take the time it needs to neutralize Hizbullah, but the Europeans fear mounting civilian casualties will play into the hands of militants and weaken Lebanon's democratically elected government.
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour criticized the rising toll, saying the shelling was invariably killing innocent civilians.
' 'International law demands accountability,'' she said in Geneva. ''The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control.''
Great graphic explaining the whole Arab-Israeli conflict: Guardian Graphic
posted by Matt @ 9:53 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Some notes I'd like to make, taken from various sources (some unashamed plagarism as well).
Jewish immigration wasn't the product of the UN, or even World War II. The Zionist movement began in the 19th century and accelerated in the early 20th century following waves of persecution all over Europe. This was, perhaps climaxed after WWII.
Jews ruled Israel continuously from approximately 1300 BC until 68 AD. Since that time, no other government has been based in Israel, no other country has called Jerusalem its capitol, and no other people has called that land its home.
Israel was deserted waste for much of the period between 68 AD and the beginning of the return of larger numbers of Jews started in 1870. Israel's interior areas were mainly a desert-like wasteland while her coast was a malaria-ridden swamp.
The term "Palestina" was invented by the Roman emperor Hadrian. The Romans wanted to rename Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) after the Philistines, the longtime enemy of the Jews. Hadrian believed that by renaming the Jewish homeland after the Jews' archenemy, he would be able to forever break the bond between the Land of Israel and the Jewish people. The name Philistines in Hebrew is plishtim, which comes from the Hebrew verb polshim (foreign invaders). He later renamed it to Syria Palaestina in 135 AD, renaming Jerusalem to Colonia Aelia Capitolina at the same time. There never was a group of people indiginous to Palestine, as there never was a country of Palestine, nor a government, nor any organization native to the locale. The people mistakenly called Palestinians are really just Arabs, along with the natives of Lebanon, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Kuwait, etc.
Arabs appear to only have come to the Land of Israel in large numbers after the Jews returned in the 20th century and started to rebuild the nation, thereby creating economic and employment opportunities for Arab immigrants. However, this is contested and not easily proven.
Prior to 1870, when Jews started to return to the Holy Land in large numbers, there were somewhere between 100,000 and 400,000 Arabs living in what is today the State of Israel - including Yesha (the Hebrew acronym for Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip).
Jews were a majority of the population of Jerusalem in the 19th century, and settled many of the cities of the Galilee as well. In 1844 - when the Land of Israel was controlled by the Turkish Muslims - the Ottoman census counted 7,120 Jews and 5,000 Muslims living in Jerusalem. Thus, Jerusalem was already a Jewish city 160 years ago. Until an Arab massacre wiped them out in 1929, there was even a large Jewish community in Hebron, which included a major Talmudical academy, which was transplanted from the village of Slobodka in Lithuania.
Many Jews stayed in the land that is now Israel after 68 AD. Thousands were massacred during the Crusades (when the indiginous population of the region massively dwindled).
Most of the land that became Israel after the formation of the "Arab" and "Jewish" states by the U.N. was actually already owned by Jews, having been purchased in small parcels beginning in 1903.
After the formation of Israel, the first action by any country was a declaration of war. Israel summarily tromped on all of their aggressors.
I know thats a lot of information, but I think its kind of important to know. Theres a whole lot of misinformation out there about the movement of Jews to that land, as well as the nature of the folks who lived there.
I don't really agree with your comment about the death toll. If a terrorist organization that is essentially sponsored by a state (Hezbollah has seats in Lebanon's cabinet and Hamas is...you know, the ruling party of Gaza) commits an act of war on a soveriegn nation, the attacked country has the right to reciprocate, much as we did against Japan and Germany. Note that we went a step beyond what Israel has done after Pearl Harbor when we attacked Germany; this would be akin to Israel declaring war on Syria or Iran.
My biggest problem with the whole thing is the world's attitude against Israel. I hate the harsh censure against a sovereign nation reciprocating violence. No one cried restraint to America after Pearl Harbor, nor did they cry foul when we attacked Germany years later.
Not only that, but if Israel captured Hezbollah soldiers and held them hostage, I firmly believe no one would lift a finger in protest of civilian deaths on the Israeli side of the border that happened because of it. Enough is enough; this double standard is ridiculous.
Mark my words: the international community (read EU) will have a fit if Israel attacks Iran or Syria no matter what provocation they provide.
You imply that the "cries for restraint" around the world are somehow anti-israeli and pro-Hizbullah (Hezbollah). There is a difference between being against war and violence in general, and being anti-israel. Israel has the obvious advantage in military strength and power. Like I've said before, it's all about perception. The death toll is real, and those numbers have an effect on people.
There is no double standard. If there is any double standard at all, it's that you rarely hear any side but the Israeli side in the mainstream media. Like I've said before, I really do believe that violence just breeds more violence and the middle east perpetual motion machine cartoon is a perfect illustration of that. It goes on and on and on and it never ends. No ONE military action or war will change that. You have to change people's minds, not hunt them down and kill them.
In just war theory, you're guidelines in war are an eye for an eye, and this military action has gone far and beyond that. It's ten eyes for one eye (so far).
Maybe in the end it will be for the best, but I don't see it helping the situation there in the long term. No amount of military force will change the attitudes of the people in that region.
I think you are dead wrong in saying that "no one would lift a finger" if Hezbollah retaliated with unnecessary military force against Israel in a similar situation. That's an extreme exaggeration in my opinion.
I'm not in any way shape or form defending the actions of Hezbollah. Once again, this is a difference of opinion. You think that by taking out Hezbollah for good, that would save more lives on both sides of the conflict. I understand that. I'm not sure that the outcome of this event will benefit the Israeli people though. I think that anti-israeli sentiment will rise and the possibility of a broader war with syria and iran could take place. People like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, the Bush Administration and the Project for the New American Century have all shown their true colors when it comes to the middle-east. They're underlying intentions are to establish a permanent U.S. military force in the region and crush everyone who opposes us. They want a broader war. They don't want to settle anything peacefully and they don't want a cease-fire. It seems like neo-cons get so giddy when people start killing each other... probably because they know all they're buddies are going to make a couple million more dollars this year because the defense budget will have to keep increasing. It makes me sick. Sorry for the little mini-rant, and I don't want to seem like I'm a conspiracy nut, but I really do believe that converging interests in government, defense and oil corporations have more to do with foreign policy than actual moral standards and decisions.
Defense profits have ballooned since the beginning of the Iraq War.
When war becomes this profitable, you're probably going to see more of it.
It would be in all our interests if there were a political upheaval in just about every country in the middle east. The attacks on Israeli soldiers and innocent civilians are horrible, and Israel has every right to defend itself. I think what many in the United Nations are merely pointing out is that they should maybe not reciprocate so aggressively. Massive military retaliation could spark even more hatred for israel and the western world among arabs and muslims.
The cries for restraint are pro-Hezbollah, because they are anti-Israel.
I think being pro- or anti- violence is rather silly. Violence is not a thing or an evil beast with its own thought process. Violence is a tool by which man has lived since his beginnings. Violence has taken us from being cavemen to where we are today. Violence ended Carthage, founded America, freed England, started and ended WWII.
Now, violence is a tool that countries can and should use for the protection of their populations. Check. The question comes now into "where" and "how much". Obviously, you would not spank a baby with an axe. Enter the restraint argument. You are claiming that Israel is spanking Hezbollah with an axe. I totally and completely disagree.
In order for your argument to have any merit, Hezbollah would have to be helpless in the face of their enemies. This is not the case. Several elite veteran Israeli units have been ambushed by Hezbollah guerillas and actually driven back, requiring reinforcements to get clear of the fighting. Hezbollah is attacking ferociously, firing as many as 100 missiles per hour, intentionally firing missiles into apartment complexes and heavily crowded areas. Clearly, this is not Israel fighting a defenseless enemy.
As to your "eye for an eye" comment, this is utter rubbish. Pure silliness. Would you find fault with the United States' total-war response to aggression in World War II? Perhaps you would, knowing that while our military (civilian) casualties totaled 407,300 (11,200), Japan lost over 2 million (600,000) and Germany lost 5,500,000 (1,840,000). Were we in the wrong? The answer is a resounding no. We were doing whatever was necessary to defend our very way of life. Numbers become irrelevant.
There is zero difference between the two situations. If anything, Israel is more justified in their response than we were, as Japan limited their attacks to military targets (for the most part).
Let me put it to you this way: your house is under siege by thugs. Your wife is shot and killed by them as you prepare to defend yourself. Right now, the death toll is 1-0. You proceed to kill all 50 of them, in self defense, because they are stupid enough to expose their flank to your hypothetical machine gun fire. Should you stop after 1? Should you limit yourself to a 2:1 ratio? How about 3:1? What becomes acceptable? Are you 49 times wrong for your actions?
This line of thought won't even win you a football game. If you're going to play football, you need to be willing to win. Why is the media pushing such a silly attitude with something so much more serious? I mean honestly, if ESPN preached restraint, eye for an eye, their viewers would laugh them out of business.
If Israel followed these utterly foolish cries for restraint, they would be hamstrung into ineffectiveness. You cannot fight a war with one hand tied behind your back, looking to only repay what you've lost. You have to go into the situation prepared to do whatever is necessary to protect you and yours.
I don't see Israel firing rockets filled with ball bearings and shrapnel at random into civilian areas. Where are the cries for restraint to Hezbollah?
I think you're totally and completely misunderstanding my point. We've been over this before in previous posts, and I could go on forever. But there really is no point is there?
There is no difference between the situation now and WORLD WAR II???? Come on... lets do some critical thinking here. There are obvious differences. Like maybe the fact that Japan and Germany were extremely powerful military nations that came THAT CLOSE to world domination. We don't want another world war do we? So let's try and solve this shit diplomatically instead of dropping bombs and retaliating with violence, stooping down to the level of the same terrorist organizations that are attacking us and our allies now.
I'm not a citizen under the rule of Hezbollah, I'm a citizen under the rule of an authorotarian congress and administration in the United States. I feel more obliged to criticize the actions of my elected government than I do of another country and people that I know almost nothing about (and neither do you).
Once again, this is a CYCLE OF VIOLENCE that NEVER ENDS. When are we going to take the words of our greatest teachers seriously? Jesus said, love your enemies. Was he mistaken? You seem to think so... I thought you were a Christian Matt.
Keep commenting here. You have some very well thought out ideas and even though this is my blog, it's good to get the other side's opinion in there. I'm always trying to understand both sides of every conflict (as you well know) and I'm really enjoying this ongoing debate.
There are 5 million jews in Israel surrounded by 300 million arabs, all of whom's leaders seem to resent the very fact that Israel exists. We know that that is the resounding opinion of most of the muslim world. Another very popular opinion among arabs is that the Holocaust never happened. The propogating of this kind of misinformation is criminal. This is what many arab countries teach in their islamic schools.
This is a war of information more than anything else if you look at it in the broader sense. People aren't just born anti-semitic. They have been misled into believing that all jewish people are bad. This is what fuels the hatred in these anti-israel organizations. They constantly propogate this misinformation to their people, blaming all their problems on the zionists and distracting them from the real issue, which is that they have all failed economically.
Their leaders are greedy, violent propogandists and they've failed they're people. Because of this, they have to blame all of they're problems on the Jews. I get your world war two analogy.
I was just defending the idea that Israel may be overreacting... and playing the devils advocate. I really don't know enough about all of this to take a firm position.
On one hand I definetly think that Israel should take out all of Hezbollah's military capabilities. On the other, I think that if Israel doesn't do this with the utmost care in sparing human life, it's eventually just going to fuel palestinian and arab hatred for them.
You say that violence has been with us since the beginning of time. You're right, but does that mean that it has to be that way forever, simply because that's
"how it's always been"? Why can't we make a concious decision to give these people who HATE US, a reason NOT TO HATE US. Bombing their countries and killing their people doesn't do anything to stop that anger from spreading.
I enjoy debating, it sharpens my wit, polishes my delivery, etc. I think if more people did what we do, we'd be in better shape. Thanks for hosting my comments.
I think we agree that Israel should take out Hezbollah's military capabilities. However, I don't think your two ideas are on "opposite hands" from each other. I think Israel is taking the utmost care in sparing human life. Prior to bombing any target they've flooded the area with flyers warning true innocents to leave. Those who choose to remain are at that point aiding the terrorists by becoming martyrs and human shields for evil men. As one Israeli general put it "As far as I'm concerned, there are no civilians left in southern Lebanon". I think he has a good point; either these people are against Hezbollah or for them. You can't allow people to do that without agreeing; you can't let them come into your neighborhood or home and fire rockets from your back yard. People have to be accountable for their decisions. At this point, those who are remaining are helping Hezbollah, and I bet they know it. Along this line of thought, I would imagine that in five years or so if anyone bothers to go back and sift through the evidence, 99.9% of the targets that the IDF hit are going to be easily shown to be terrorists or their assets. Just a hunch; the IDF is pretty painstaking and they're pretty good.
I don't think Israel has to do anything to fuel Palestinian hatred. Its there, it isn't going away. That's pretty much fact. When people as a nation are willing to sacrifice the lives of their children and even their wives (seen the women wearing suicide vests? It was all over the AP a few weeks ago) they've pretty much hit rock bottom. This kind of stuff has developed after numerous cease fires, Israel pulling out of Gaza, basically bending over backwards for these people.
I think Hamas and Hezbollah have made their point pretty clear. As long as Israel is around, they will hate them without any further cause. With that kind of enemy lurking, I think Israel has no choice but to react the way they are: 100% utter destruction of the organizations sworn to harm their citizens.
When someone swears to kill you and yours you don't shrug it off, not when its a credible threat, and certainly not when they begin to try to do it.
Lastly, I think you nicely sidestepped my point about "restraint". In doing so, you sort of lit up exactly what I was saying. People in the media enjoy pointing out what you're saying, that Israel needs to be "rational" and "careful", but no one is saying too much at all about the Kassams with ball bearings and shrapnel killing little ol ladies in Haifa.
I think if Kofi Annan and his buddies in the UN had any kind of moral credibility at all they'd be condemning the attacks instead of criticizing Israel's response. What kind of upside down world do we live in that when a group that has an elected representative in a government cabinet (i.e., state sponsored) attacks a sovereign nation in a brutal fashion targeting primarily civilians we criticize the victim instead of the aggresor?
I think its time for the MSM to take a step back for a second and get recommited to reality. Don't be suckered into their warped perception of fault and blame here.
Thomas Sowell wrote a great article on the concept of the cycle of violence. In many ways, it is perpetuated by cease-fire agreements because it gives the losing members (i.e., the perpetual arab aggressors) time to recoup and recover while Israel has to sit idle. Had the UN allowed Israel to utterly destroy her enemies long ago (as we did to Japan) she may well have had allies in the region by now instead of enemies (as we have with Japan).
Its an interesting thought. As to "since time immemorial" etc, I think the problem with peace is that no one will honor it. As Heinlein says, "As soon as we start singing 'aint'a gonna study war no mo'' sometime in the future (about next Tuesday) someone moves in and utterly destroys us." Same reason socialism and communism don't work; nice ideas, but bad people ruin it for the rest of us.
I have no problem with your argument except a couple of your points. You mention that "if anyone bothers to go back and sift through the evidence, 99.9% of the targets that the IDF hit are going to be easily shown to be terrorists or their assets. Just a hunch; the IDF is pretty painstaking and they're pretty good."
Nicholas Blanford of the London Times:
The Israeli military said that it was hunting down Lebanon’s Hezbollah guerrillas, but it is the civilian population that is bearing the brunt of the conflict. Survivors interviewed by The Times said that Israel was bombing homes, schools, the centres of villages and towns and vehicles including ambulances. Even the Jabel Amel hospital was struck early on Sunday morning by a missile that demolished an entire wing and killed a family of nine.
Dr Mrowe said: “We have recovered five of the bodies. There are another four under the rubble. If they hit the hospital again it will be a massacre.”
By late yesterday his hospital alone had received 196 casualties, 25 of them dead.
One young boy, Walid Abu Zeidi, writhed on his hospital bed, his small body daubed with iodine and his arm wrapped in a bandage. He and his friends had been swimming in the Litani when a missile exploded nearby. “I saw the flash of the missile, then I was thrown down,” he said. In the basement corridors other children sat, wide-eyed with fright, with their mothers and sisters.
You must have heard about the 4 U.N. observers of the conflict who were killed after Israel was warned over 10 times in the same day not to attack the building that they were in. Mistakes happen, "99.9%" is a gross over-exaggeration of the methodology of war.
I know arab extremists have reached "rock bottom" when they start outfitting their wives and children with bombs and guns. But these extremists are a finite number of muslims. That number increases, decreases depending on several factors, including Israel's degree of aggressiveness at a certain point in time. You act like this situation is all rosey. I know you don't think that, but that's the way you seem to present yourself.
I just don't see how you can be on one side or the other. It's too complicated of a situation and there are pro's and con's to Israel's actions in this particular situation. How can you possibly weigh these out and come up with a defintive conclusion as to whether or not this is going to help the Israeli and American people in the long run? It's impossible to tell the future.
My comment... "on the one hand", is more like on the one hand I support Israel's right to defend itself, on the other I am staunchly opposed to any kind of war. I don't think that war should even be in the international mindsight. I think that we should be combating the IDEA OF WAR more than actually participating in it. Never in my life have I ever heard one person on TV, in radio, in anything besides books talk about war as a general IDEA. The very fact that it is in the conciousness of human beings is disturbing. It should be as taboo as gay marriage. The idea should make people vomit at the very thought of it. Instead, I see a culture that almost glamorizes the killing of other human beings. I see governments (specifically ours) who condone war as the first response to anything and everything.
Oh and I didn't sidestep your point on the "cries of restraint" being anti-israel and pro-hezbollah. I said this in response:
I'm not a citizen under the rule of Hezbollah, I'm a citizen under the rule of an authorotarian congress and administration in the United States. I feel more obliged to criticize the actions of my elected government than I do of another country and people that I know almost nothing about (and neither do you).
On top of that, just because you criticize your freind, doesn't mean you're on the side of his enemy. Only neo-cons look at the world as that black and white.
Yes...innocents have died. But ask yourself, why did Israel hit those targets?
The UN post is a good example, I'm glad you brought it up. Says the UNIFIL press release of 20 July:
Hezbollah firing was also reported from the immediate vicinity of the UN positions in Naquora and Maroun Al Ras areas at the time of the incidents (of Israeli return fire).
Retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie says he recently received emails from the Canadian peacekeeper killed at the UN post who’d told him that Hezbollah was using his post as cover.
We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it.
Under the Geneva Convention if side A fires from a position that uses civilians as shields, and side B retaliates, killing hundreds of civilians, side A is responsible for the crime. So blame little Walid Abu Zeidi on Hezbollah. Not to mention the fact that Hezbollah's firing is SO innacurate as to be criminal...how do we know that they're not raining down fire on their own people by mistake? The UN post apparently hit by an Israeli missile actually took fire from Hezbollah-fired mortars earlier that day.
The point I'm making about hitting targets is that we don't know who's being killed over there and everyone in the media (Nick Blanford and the London Times included) is sure quick to jump to conclusions and blame the IDF.
I think war should be avoided at all costs. However, before injuring myself to the point that I can no longer run, I was in the ROTC, planned to go into the Marines. I don't want to kill people, I wish it weren't necessary. In this day and age, though, other countries and people are choosing to make it necessary.
Hezbollah has fired over 1,400 rockets since this started. In fact, they never really stopped firing at Israeli positions.
September 2005:
* Sept.11th - Hezbollah fires Katyusha rocket at Western Galilee town of Shelomi - the rocket slams into the industrial zone causing damage but no casualties because the area was abandoned due to Independence Day.
* Sept.12th - Hezbollah fires 2 rockets from south Lebanon at IDF position in Mount Dov area (Shaaba farms) of Syria. No Casualties or damage. Israeli forces return fire at Hezbollah positions in the area.
* Sept.13th - Hezbollah fires 13 mortar bombs at IDF positions in Mount Dov, IDF fires back and hits 3 Hezbollah positions.
I could go on, there are countless attacks against Israel. They weren't going to stop, they weren't going to end. This is Hezbollah grabbing the gun out of Israel's hand and pointing it to their own chest.
It really is kill or be killed, its really not a joke, and at this point Israel has to respond in force or subject itself to another decade of violence.
Post a Comment
<< Home