Who started it?
Gideon Levy comments in Haaretz about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In Who started? he stands firmly in the camp of justice for the Palestinian people and against Israel’s disproportionate attacks on a people still subjugated. Check it out.
Also, check out the comments section below the article. Everyone has a point-of-view on what others write, but some of this stuff is pure hatred or unequivocal self-justification.
Tip o’ the biretta to Fr. Jim Tucker.
I suppose this is oversimplification, but the following two sentences convinced me to view this issue differently.
If the Muslims in the Middle East laid down their weapons, there would be peace in the Middle East. If the Israelis laid down their weapons, there would be another holocaust.
Why is no credibility given to Israelis when they assert their attacks have strategic significance? To say that the strategic significance does not justify the civilian casualties is an honest argument. That is a matter of opinion. However, to say that Israel is murdering Lebanese children without cause, without acknowledging their assertions of self-defense and military strategy, is troubling.
First of all let me say that I think Israel has every right to exist and to protect itself. I also think Israel has the knowledge, power, and sophistication to protect itself in a proper manner, i.e., one that goes after the terrorists. I’ve said this on several occasions. I am all for going after terrorists. They deserve no quarter.
In regard to Israel’s credibility, I think it is weak. As Brzezinski and others have pointed out, they may be working from a weak political position and without a cohesive strategy. The strategists have noted that Israel may have assumed that a ‘shock and awe’ strategy would work. They’ve had to subsequently backtrack, especially in regard to the perhaps unanticipated collateral damage. First they told people to stay – they died. Then they told people to leave, and subsequently bombed the roads. They told the Lebanese military to disarm the terrorists – then they bombed the Lebanese military. They came across as foolish and abusive – and indeed they were.
I think they’ve finally gotten to the point of sorting it out, focusing on the terrorist infrastructure and bunkers. Unfortunately, too many died before the plan was in hand.
To do a proper job against the terrorists, Israel has to go in and root them out. Unfortunately it is messy to do so. Such an engagement involves heavy casualties for the IDF, battles at close quarters, and a war that may be protracted (think Stalingrad). But the guilty would be sought out and punished, while truly limiting civilian casualties.
The Israeli populace, just like US citizens, won’t stand for a messy war. Indeed, that’s why they disengaged from Lebanon before. We all want war that keeps us safe (and our soldiers safe). The result of this desire for ‘clean war’ is lobbing artillery shells and dropping cluster bombs on targets. Needless to say, it kills far too many who ‘get in the way’. I hate hearing – ‘well there are always civilian casualties.’ That’s just a cop-out.
The first week of this war was a week that made no sense. Hitting Lebanese roads, lighthouses, power plants, grain storage facilities, and other civilian infrastructure was senseless and disproportionate. Indeed, go after the terrorists – they deserve what they get. Israel deserves to remain safe and free.
As to the Haaretz author, he makes a valid point in regard to the disproportionate abilities of the sides. As military experts continue to state, Israel can wipe out all the military capabilities of the Arab/Persian countries pretty quickly. I don’t worry about Muslim arms because they are throwback Soviet arms – out-of-date and non-functioning.
In the end, my agreement with the author is premised on the fact that without justice for all concerned (which humanity rarely if ever achieves) we cannot expect an end to this.
Also, two points:
You quote that if Muslims laid down their weapons etc. I take it that you are implying Islamic terrorists, not duly constituted countries and governments?
Are you arguing that strategic significance leading to civilian casualties might be justified? That this is a matter of opinion? I would think that the totality of Christian thought on that issue would say that you cannot commit an evil to bring about a good. At least for my part that is my guide.