Isreal, Hizballah, Lebanon, War and Terrorism
Hizballah is an illegal extremist militia occupying Southern Lebanon in defiance of a UN resolution. Isreal is an isolated western democracy surrounded by states and non-state actors that want to exterminate it's population. Lebanon is a barely functioning nation-state fractured by religious violence. Terrorism is what all parties in this conflict call the tactics of their opponents.
The Arabs and Persians say that any use of force by Isreal is terrorism and that Isreal is illegal occupation of Arab land.
There is little doubt that the use of suicide bombers and hijacking by Hizballah are terrorist tactics.
Some people think all war is terrorism because it causes terror. That is random crap and moral relativism. Modern war is conducted under a framework of law that attempts to protect civilians and non-military facilities from violence. War and Terrorism are two different things. If a nation-state uses tactics that deliberately target civilians and non-military facilities, the action is a crime under the law of war.
When civilians are accidentally killed during the pursuit of military objectives, it is not a crime. It is collateral damage. Hizballah is preventing civilians from leaving the war zone. It wants to use pictures of collateral damage to accuse Isreal of Terror.
When Hizballah attacked an Isreali vehicle and took to soldiers captive, it was an act of war. Shelling cities with unguided rockets in an attempt to cause civilian casualties is and act of terror.
Now with that said, why should Isreal show restraint? Why should they allow Hizballah to continue to exist on their border? Why should they accept a ceasefire that allows Hizballah to rearm? Can you have a ceasefire with an entity that's sworn to your destruction? Why would you want to allow a resourceful, dedicated and ruthless enemy to watch and wait for a weakness to exploit?
I'm certain that Isreal will call it off before the job is done, but the bush administration is on the record that the outcome will not be the status quo. I hope not. A stable Lebanon free of illegal militias would be a good start.
B-52 carpet bombing would be a good way to send Hizballah the message.
The Arabs and Persians say that any use of force by Isreal is terrorism and that Isreal is illegal occupation of Arab land.
There is little doubt that the use of suicide bombers and hijacking by Hizballah are terrorist tactics.
Some people think all war is terrorism because it causes terror. That is random crap and moral relativism. Modern war is conducted under a framework of law that attempts to protect civilians and non-military facilities from violence. War and Terrorism are two different things. If a nation-state uses tactics that deliberately target civilians and non-military facilities, the action is a crime under the law of war.
When civilians are accidentally killed during the pursuit of military objectives, it is not a crime. It is collateral damage. Hizballah is preventing civilians from leaving the war zone. It wants to use pictures of collateral damage to accuse Isreal of Terror.
When Hizballah attacked an Isreali vehicle and took to soldiers captive, it was an act of war. Shelling cities with unguided rockets in an attempt to cause civilian casualties is and act of terror.
Now with that said, why should Isreal show restraint? Why should they allow Hizballah to continue to exist on their border? Why should they accept a ceasefire that allows Hizballah to rearm? Can you have a ceasefire with an entity that's sworn to your destruction? Why would you want to allow a resourceful, dedicated and ruthless enemy to watch and wait for a weakness to exploit?
I'm certain that Isreal will call it off before the job is done, but the bush administration is on the record that the outcome will not be the status quo. I hope not. A stable Lebanon free of illegal militias would be a good start.
B-52 carpet bombing would be a good way to send Hizballah the message.
posted by ironcross11 | 11:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home