If a civilian is a member of Hezbollah is he/she really a civilian?

[bryant69]

I just finished reading "The "hiding among civilians" myth" at Salon ( http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/28/hezbollah/ Crap ad watching required), in which the author points out that apparently Hezbollah Fighters do not hide out among civilians. They don't trust civilians. What he also points out is that many members of Hezbollah's political wing do live among civilians as do people who work for Hezbollah.

"In the south, where Shiites dominate, just about everyone supports Hezbollah. Does mere support for Hezbollah, or even participation in Hezbollah activities, mean your house and family are fair game? Do you need to fire rockets from your front yard? Or is it enough to be a political activist?

The Israelis are consistent: They bomb everyone and everything remotely associated with Hezbollah, including noncombatants. In effect, that means punishing Lebanon. The nation is 40 percent Shiite, and of that 40 percent, tens of thousands are employed by Hezbollah's social services, political operations, schools, and other nonmilitary functions. The "terrorist" organization Hezbollah is Lebanon's second-biggest employer."

Is there any confusion over what Hezbollah wants to do to Israel? Any grey area there? And if you choose to support Hezbollah, given what they want to do to Israel, how can you then claim to be an innocent civilian?

It could be that I'm looking at this wrong; if so I'd like to know how.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[reality based]

1. That's right, bomb the hell out of those kids, they asked for it.

[bryant69]

3. Which kids are you talking about?

The Hezbollah supporting, Israali killing Lebanese kids? Or the Israel supporting, Lebanese killing Israeli kids?

[reality based]

13. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[bryant69]

14. A Bird in the Hand is worth two in the Bush.

[Crayson]

16. At least one bird is there in the Bush...

... i guess it's a cuckoo.
^_^

[H2O Man]

28. Sadly, that type

of blindness is required to allow one to attempt to justify killing children. Can they really be children if their parents support ______?

[bryant69]

29. It always goes back to kids, I suppose.

Hezbollah supports killing Israeli kids so I can't support tham.

Isreal supports killing Lebanese kids so I can't support them.

A large part of southern Lebanon supports Hezbollah which supports killing Israeli kids so I can't support them.

A significant portion of DU supports Israel which supports killing Lebanese Kids so I can't support them.

Another significant potion of DU supports southern Lebanon which supports Hezbollah which supports killing Israeli kids so I can't support them.

Only one answer which seems to be, to hell with everybody.

Bryant

[reality based]

33. It's not a sporting event. You don't have to "support" either side to

try to minimize the killing and maiming of innocents (or even the guilty for that matter). Peace be with you.

[bryant69]

35. Peace is a lie.

[H2O Man]

61. silly n/t

[bryant69]

65. Thank you for that well thought out and reasoned response

I appreciate the time you put into it.

[H2O Man]

71. Considering the nonsense

that I was responding to, it seems more than adequate.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bryant69]

82. I apologize for wasting your time.

Bryant

[Tesha]

2. If a citizen is a taxpayer funding a state military, are they purely...

If a citizen is a taxpayer funding a state military (that kills
on behalf of the state), are they purely an innocent civilian?

If they work in any industry that feeds the military, are the purely
an innocent civilian?

Tesha

[liberalitch]

15. Actually,..... no. Even though I have never supported Bush with my...

votes or beliefs. I too bear SOME responsibility for what he does.

Millions of liberals sat on their hands or played nice after 911 for the sake of unity..... while I am proud to say that I was not one of them..... those who are gave an inch and they took a mile.

NONE of us are completely absolved.

[ugarte]

4. Very convenient way of justifying civilian deaths

I suppose Hezbollah can make the same argument for killing Israeli civilians.

[bryant69]

6. Presumably they do.

[stray cat]

11. They don't bother with an argument

They admit right off the bat they want to destroy Israel and everyone in it.

[treestar]

42. We never do hear their side of it

It is still a mystery what they were hoping to accomplish. They got the worst end of it, and must have realized that.

[ixion]

5. When Israel commits war crimes with US weaponry, and funding from

US tax dollars, does that all US taxpayers war criminals?

Just askin'.

[bryant69]

8. Yes it does.

And murderers.

[ixion]

10. okay, that's what I thought.

:cry:

[jobycom]

7. Remember that the next time a plane slams into a skyscraper in America

Is there any doubt what BushCo wants to do to America? Doesn't that mean that little children in day cares are really soldiers for Bush who deserve to die?

[Warren Stupidity]

9. By your theory

as there is no doubt regarding the intentions of the political wing of the IDF, all civilian regions of Israel are appropriate military targets for Hezbollah. Hezbollah is consistent, they bomb everyone and everything remotely associated with the IDF and its political wing.

Do you see any problem with applying your theory of legitimate military targets to all sides in the conflict? Or, as usual, should your theory only be applied to those you see as 'the enemy'?

[bryant69]

12. Well I'm an enormous hypocrite so this theory only

applies to Lebanon, not to Israel. Of course.

[atreides1]

18. How refreshing

Someone who admits their hypocrisy!

[bryant69]

20. Just making it easy. And since I have edged closer to supporting israel

one must assume that I am an anti Muslim Bigot of one kind or another. I mean after all, I don't mind Lebanese children getting blown up. Presumably I'm some kind of heartless monster.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. You're just kidding, of course

But not really.

But let's do it with white people just to make sure. Would you have supported British bombing of the Catholic neighborhoods of Belfast simply because almost everyone in them was a member of Sinn Fein? Because that's essentially what you're saying here?

[bryant69]

23. Yes of course -this is one of those jokes where I think i'm telling a joke

but it really reveals how I really feel. So I think i'm joking when I say i'm an anti-muslim bigot, but the truth is, if I weren't an anti-Muslim bigot I wouldn't have these thoughts. I'd be thinking in the correct manner.

Simple enough.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Hey man...you're the one making the ridiculous arguments

And it has nothing to do with correctness. This is politics, after all. You're not an aggrieved victim; just somebody with an incredibly brutal opinion. No biggie, really. Now, getting back to the question: would your argument apply in Northern Ireland? It's a pretty simple question, and doesn't require all these gymnastics. :-)

[bryant69]

27. Yes it would, to an extent.

The North Irish have more limited goals; they don't have the goal of eliminating England. On the other hand if you support an organization that has as it's methods terrorism, than you are guilty.

SO yeah, if England wanted to flatten parts of North Ireland and kill a lot of white christians, I wouldn't care; that's their right.

[Warren Stupidity]

104. Well the IRA had the goal of eliminating the UK from Ireland.

Which goal is approximately the same as that of the various palestinian factions with respect to the occupied territories. Hezbollah, while mouthing the usual sentiments of the region regarding Israel, seems mostly to be about Shiite ascendency in Lebanon, and is a factor in Iran's goals of shiite ascendency throughout the middle east.

[alcibiades_mystery]

105. Not to mention driving the protestants of N. Ireland into the Sea

as it were.

[The Deacon]

17. I think the confusion lies

in defining 'Hezbollah' or 'Hamas' these days. Gone are the days when terrorist organizations seem easy to define. Today both organizations are political parties as well as paramilitary organizations - and being a political party in the Arab world today means having a large social services component. (In a way, this hearkens back to 1930s Europe, where both Right and Left organizations had paramilitary forces as part of their structure, as well as labor exchanges, soup kitchens & orphanages.) It is not easy to separate Hezbollah's day care centers from its schools from its campaign offices from its terrorist cells. Except by how each supports the overall mission of Hezbollah, of course. And this is an important distinction - the Geneva Conventions are usually interpreted to prohibit the deliberate targeting of people not bearing arms, even in a declared War Zone.
Why should this matter to the United States and to Israel? Other than the fact that we're signatories to the Geneva Conventions, there is the fact that we are in battle (or should be in a battle) for the hearts & minds of all populations in the Middle East. Israel will enjoy no security until they manage this.
Impossible, you say? Israel managed it with Egypt, Jordan, and the PLO/Fatah. All three started at the position of calling for the destruction of Israel - all three, at considerable cost to themselves, have moved to a position of accepting the right of Israel to exist. Saudi Arabia & the Gulf States last week, again at considerable risk to themselves, blamed the current crisis on Hezbollah's provocative actions - and Israel missed an 'once-in-a-lifetime' opportunity to gain a diplomatic coup by announcing that it would pull back & restrain its military.
Make no mistake, this war isn't about three kidnapped Israeli soldiers (two in Lebanon, one in Gaza) or rockets falling on Haifa or Hezbollah disarming - it is about a weak Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister trying to establish credibility with the right wing of Israeli politics.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bryant69]

22. Thank you - and for my next trick, I'll do an amazing display of rudeness

But you'll have to wait a bit; I need to build up a head of steam.

[Igel]

24. It's a problem.

Part of Hezbollah is that it's a theocracy. It's run by a preacher. Hezbollah is preached in mosques, it's taught it schools, and the implicit assumption is that accepting the largesse of Hezbollah incurs some sort of mutual obligation. It has donor sources, munitions sources, and local income-producing sources. It is a mildly totalitarian state, in which the state takes care of the population in exchange for allegiance to the leader's goals.

Destroy the military, and you have the schools and mosques still preaching that it's the duty of the population to take up arms and fight the aggressor, complacently sitting across the border in occupied Muslim lands. "Aggressor" is an on-going state; it is not an activity, unless "incidentally producing a sense of humiliation" is an activity. The distinction is meaningful. The humiliation is religious and ethnic. Destroy the military, and you still have funding to the organization. Destroy the military, and you still have the will to power buried in the ideology. Rather like simply weakening Japan's military, sparing the civilian hierarchy and nationalist ideology: you leave the ideology and motivation that produced the problem intact, and the problem recurs. In spades.

This produces a quandary, one familiar from other areas of the world. To destroy the military threat you have to dig much deeper. But that's judged wrong. Western values of peace and dignity prescribe what amounts to setting up a multi-year cycle of violence; it prescribes affirming the local values that produce conflict. Those that have produced peace and stability in the area, who have understood the culture and local imperatives, have emphatically not shared western values. Those methods are proscribed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. You're correct re: the quandary

n/t

[The Magistrate]

48. An Excellent Analysis, Sir

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. No. To the murderers they are reduced to "targets".

Followed by the usual justifications of murderers to justify the murder.

[bryant69]

31. usual justifications, eh?

Well nobodies perfect.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Yes. The same as used by the Interhamwe in Rwanda.

The government in Rwanda was threatened by "terrorists" the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPK)that were based in the countries bordering Rwanda. Most of the minority Tutsis supported the RPF and were seen as an internal threat by the majority Hutus and were considered "legitimate" targets.

The result was 900,000 dead Tutsi and 2 million more dead Congolese, Hutus, and Tutsis in the aftermath and still ongoing tribal wars, starvation, and disease.


Would you care for more examples? There are legions of them.

[bryant69]

37. oh yes please

This is all very interesting.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Sure. Here's one about threatening religious "fanatics".

A phenomena swept the American west in 1888 by Paiute holy man Wovoka from Nevada.. Wovoka, son of the mystic Tavibo, drew on his father's teachings and his own vision during an eclipse of the sun. He began spreading the "gospel" that came to be known as the Ghost Dance Religion. He claimed that the earth would soon perish and then come alive again in a pure, aboriginal state, to be inherited by the Indians, including the dead, for an eternal existence free from suffering.
To earn this new reality, however, Indians had to live harmoniously and honestly, cleanse themselves often, and shun the ways of the whites, especially alcohol, the destroyer. Wovoka also discouraged the practice of mourning, because the dead would soon be resurrected, demanding instead the performance of prayers, meditation, chanting, and especially dancing through which one might briefly die and catch a glimpse of the paradise-to-come, replete with lush green prairie grass, large buffalo herds and Indian ancestors.Kicking Bear, a Miniconjou Teton Lakota, made a pilgrimage to Nevada to learn about this new "religion".

Together with Short Bull, another Miniconjou mystic, they gave another interpretation, choosing to disregard Wovoka's anti-violence and emphasizing the possible elimination of the whites. Special Ghost Dance Shirts, they claimed, would protect them against the white man's bullets

The Wounded Knee Massacre

White officials became alarmed at the religious fervor and activism and in December 1890 banned the Ghost Dance on Lakota reservations. When the rites continued, officials called in troops to Pine Ridge and Rosebud reservations in South Dakota. The military, led by veteran General Nelson Miles, geared itself for another campaign.

The presence of the troops exacerbated the situation. Short Bull and Kicking Bear led their followers to the northwest corner of the Pine Ridge reservation, to a sheltered escarpment known as the Stronghold. The dancers sent word to Sitting Bull of the Hunkpapas to join them. Before he could set out from the Standing Rock reservation in North Dakota, however, he was arrested by Indian police. A scuffle ensued in which Sitting Bull and seven of his warriors were slain. Six of the policemen were killed.

General Miles had also ordered the arrest of Big Foot, who had been known to live along the Cheyenne River in South Dakota. But, Big Foot and his followers had already departed south to Pine Ridge, asked there by Red Cloud and other supporters of the whites, in an effort to bring tranquility. Miles sent out the infamous Seventh Calvary led by Major Whitside to locate the renegades. They scoured the Badlands and finally found the Miniconjou dancers on Porcupine Creek, 30 miles east of Pine Ridge. The Indians offered no resistance. Big Foot, ill with pneumonia, rode in a wagon. The soldiers ordered the Indians to set up camp five miles westward, at Wounded Knee Creek. Colonel James Forsyth arrived to take command and ordered his guards to place four Hotchkiss cannons in position around the camp. The soldiers now numbered around 500; the Indians 350, all but 120 of these women and children.

The following morning, December 29, 1890, the soldiers entered the camp demanding the all Indian firearms be relinquished. A medicine man named Yellow Bird advocated resistance, claiming the Ghost Shirts would protect them. One of the soldiers tried to disarm a deaf Indian named Black Coyote. A scuffle ensued and the firearm discharged. The silence of the morning was broken and soon other guns echoed in the river bed. At first, the struggle was fought at close quarters, but when the Indians ran to take cover, the Hotchkiss artillery opened up on them, cutting down men, women, children alike, the sick Big Foot among them. By the end of this brutal, unnecessary violence, which lasted less than an hour, at least 150 Indians had been killed and 50 wounded. In comparison, army casualties were 25 killed and 39 wounded. Forsyth was later charged with killing the innocents, but exonerated.

Do you want a description of Dresden, Hiroshima and My Lai? Fallujah? Lidice? Oradour sur Mer? The "Commissar Order"? The Phillipine uprising by Aquinaldo? Or, if you prefer older examples, The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans? The massacres in Acre by the Crusaders? The endless pogroms against the Jews?

[bryant69]

40. IF you want to; because obviously If I had been around for

each of those events I would have been on the sides of the killers - so It's interesting to know exactly to what depths of bloodthirsty mass murder I am capable of supporting.

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. It's a question of consistency

[bryant69]

44. Exactly, I try my best to be as consistant as possible

And a justifier of murders is a justifier of murderers, at the end of the day.

[alcibiades_mystery]

56. And that's precisely what you are

[bryant69]

62. Yes, but as i said in another post

Nobody's perfect.

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. That's manifest

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Well, if you can find time between massacres, you might respond

to my original response to your original post.

The gist of which was that those doing the killing of civilians always have justifications at hand that are far from original or valid.

[bryant69]

51. Oh yes you are right

I was wrong in my question of a couple of hours ago - this is a bullshit excuse to kill civilians. They should just accept that part of the price they have to pay for living in Israel is the constant stream of civilian casualities from Hamas and Hezbollah rockets and IEDs.

Bryant

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Who use the same justifications for their actions.

Israel is portrayed as consciousless oppressors and invaders who threaten the culture and lives of the people of the rest of the Middle East. The Israeli civilians are seen as complicit in the oppression and killing them is justified as part of necessary slaughter to rid the region of the "oppressors".

[bryant69]

57. Exactly

Hezbollah, LEbanon and Isreal are chockfull of remorseless bastards and they all deserve to die.

[alcibiades_mystery]

69. There's a difference between humor, irony, and flippancy

Flippancy in the face of this catastrophe is not particularly attractive.

[bryant69]

73. I'm dead serious

The more I read about this issue, the more attractive nihilism becomes.

". . . for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,

Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night."
- Matthew Arnold, Dover Beach

And at any rate, I think I know you well enough alcibiades_mystery to know that anything I do or say will only lower your opinion of me further.

Bryant

[The Magistrate]

64. And It Is That, Sir

Which makes any attempt to portray a choice between sides in this matter as a question of morality futile.

Where everyone is not only wrong but wrong in the same way, morality offers no ground by which to choose, or on which to stand and defend a choice.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. You don't think that morality enters the equasion?

If both sides are equally wrong, are we expected to stand aside and proclaim "a pox on both your houses" while the killing continues until one side or the other is annhilated?

If practicallity is the only solution then Hezbullah and Al-Queda have already won and are above "moral" condemnation.

By their actions, coupled with the American actions in Iraq, the Israelis have diminished, rather than enhanced, the chances of regional stability. Even the "moderate" Arab/Muslim states in the region, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc, have been forced by their people and "practical politics" to condemn Israel and give, at least, tacit support to the Jihadists. Also, the invasion of Lebanon has alienated most of the peoples of the world on "moral" grounds as they watch the destruction, bodies, refugees, on television. To say that "morality" plays no part in this is naive.

It is a false dichotomy to say that one must "choose" between Hezbullah and Israel because both are wrong, and wrong in the same way. One can choose, on moral grounds, to take neither side and condemn both. Just as one can condemn, on moral grounds, both the Sunni and Shia participants in the sectarian violence in Iraq.

[The Magistrate]

80. 'A Pox On Both Your Houses', Sir

Has long struck me as a pretty reasonable response to the situation. People cannot be rescued from themselves, Sir, and to attempt it will only ensare you yourself in the toils of their down-fall. Intractable conflicts between people continue till the effects of violence in some form render one side or the other tractable to a solution, or at least unable to prevent its imposition by the victor. In such conflicts, peoples and nations make use of every resource than can employ, including such diplomatic alliances and mutual security arrangements as they can contrive and maintain, to increase the power they can employ in the conflict.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. Would that be applicable to situations like Rwanda?

Or, Vietnam? How about the "intractable" situation in the south prior to the Civil Rights movement? Where "outside agitators" from the north coupled with local malcontents, stirred up reactive violence on one side? A "pox on both their houses"?

While I agree with the sentiment "a pox on both their houses" in this instance, that is a far cry from standing aside from condemnation of the atrocities committed against civilians from both houses.

According to most news reports I heard today, pressure is increasing from around the world for Israel and Hezbullah to cease the killing. This, in my opinion, is due to the pressure put on governments, not involved the conflict, by their own people.

[The Magistrate]

88. It Is Pretty Much What Has Happened, Sir

The genocide in Rwanda sparked an armed force supported by neighboring states that defeated the government that contrived the killing, and the reverbrations have fed into a regional war of daunting intricacy that has in the interim since killed many millions of people, many more than were so beastially done to death in the initial episode. The war in Viet Nam was fought until one side prevailed, and that side runs the place to its own content to the present day. The Civil Rights Movement mustered sufficient power to prevail in setting aside a code of discriminatory laws and replacing them with certain guarantees, essentially redirecting the violence of government from upholding discriminatory practices to proscribing them.

[The Magistrate]

52. There Is Not Much To Respond To There, Sir

You believe what is going on is murder, but murder does not mean merely killing you do not approve of. It means killing defined by law as murder, as opposed to being defined as some other thing, like man-slaughter or negligent homicide or even justifiable homicide, all possible definitions of the act of one person being killed by another. You may believe what is being done meets that actual definition, but opinions on the matter vary, and no one is under any greater obligation to accept your's than mine, or anyone else's.

The varying horrors you have put up are irrelevant, and do not serve in any way to cast light on the present situation: they neither bear directly on it, nor display any important similarities to it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. You fetishize the legal definitions

above human values.

It's a disturbing display, and reductionist in the extreme.

[The Magistrate]

60. My Fetishes, Sir, Are Aimed In Other Directions Entirely

Legal codes do nothing for me at all in that line....

[alcibiades_mystery]

67. Oh, it's a fetish, alright

But I'm finished discussing this matter with you. My growing revulsion at your hair-splitting justifications for outright slaughter is making it difficult for me to maintain the high level of respect I have for you, and since discussions on this board are essentially useless in doing anything about the problem, I'll place that respect above this conversation. Health to you, and your family.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. I disagree on the legality, as does the UN. Not is it irrelevant.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/07/un-leaders-condemn-illegal-targeting.php

JURIST] Top UN officials Friday condemned Israel, the Palestinians and Lebanese Hezbollah militants for intentionally inflicting civilian casualties on one another contrary to international humanitarian law as violence continued to escalate in the Middle East, with Israel stepping up military action against Lebanese targets and Hezbollah militants attacking Haifa with rockets. Fighting has intensified in recent days as Israel presses for the return of a soldier captured by Palestinians in late June and two others seized by Hezbollah militants earlier this week. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said through a spokesman in Geneva that

while Israel has legitimate security concerns, international humanitarian law requires that parties to a conflict refrain from attacks directed against civilian objects. In particular, they have an obligation to exercise precaution and to respect the proportionality principle in all military operations so as to prevent unnecessary suffering among the civilian population. The prohibition on targeting civilians is also being violated by Hezbollah.

Please point out to me the irrelevance or lack of similarities to the current situation of the items I listed.

The justifications being used were similar, if not identical, to what is now happening in Lebanon, Israel, and Iraq.

An external threat. Civilians seen as complicit. Civilians targeted.

[The Magistrate]

70. They May Well Be Correct, Sir

But it would be nice to see a court decide, after all relevant evidence is presented by a prosecution and a defence, and examined by a judge. Until then any expression of any view is simply an opinion, and generally one advanced, from however authoritative a quarter, in some likely ignorance of relevant facts.

Your claim of relevance for the examples you put forth rests on unimportant surface similarities, and ignores wholly underlying dynamics of the different situations: you might as well assert that because a dolphin has a pretty similar shape to a tunafish, that the metabolisms and anatomies of the creatures are identical.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. If that is the case, please show the the dissimlarities.

Not between dophins and tuna, but between the "unimportant surface similarities" and the current situation and the "dynamics" thereof.

While I agree that Lebanese or Israili civilians aren't Vietnamese, Sioux or Tutsis, I find very similar justifications used by both Hezbullah and the Israelis for their killing of civilians.

As to your wish for a "court to decide, after all relevant evidence..". When I heard of the My Lai massacre and the Rwandan genocide, I admit to being guilty of ignorance "relevant facts" and decided that they were illegal acts.
The accumulation of civilian bodies seemed to provide enough evidence of wrongdoing spurred my "opinion" before the courts were convened.

[The Magistrate]

86. The Accumulation Of Civilian Bodies, Sir

Is not sufficient to conclude there is illegality, though it is certainly a horrid thing, and it would be greatly preferrable that there be no such killings.

Nor is there really any point in digressing to detailed discussion of the genocide in Rwanda or the final agonies of the Souix. If you think the employment of a few similar words is really material, then by all means continue to do so, but do not expect it to be taken very seriously.

The question of criminality in Israel's operation in central Lebanon turns on the interpretation of a number of items in the Geneva Accords that contain certain tests of whether reasonable care has been taken to avoid harm, and whether military gain outweighs harm. These have not yet been applied to specific instances by judges with all relevant evidence from both sides of the question, and therefore what they actually mean in any specific instance is unclear. War crimes tribunals to date have dealt with only much more clear-cut matters, such as the killing of prisoners, or the herding of civilians into a place for the specific and undeniable intention of killing them and proceeding there to kill them point blank. There is no room for doubt that such actions are crimes, and every justification, when it is apparent on the face of events that such things have occured, to describe them as crimes in advance of a legal finding.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. Then, Sir, you and I disagree proufoundly on what indicates illegality.

The accumulation of bodies that are found after earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, may not necessarily indicate criminal activity. But, those dismembered by artillery, bombs, bullets, or rockets directed at them by the "legal" military or by the "illegal" forces are indications of crime.

The Geneva conventions were established as a reaction to atrocities committed in war. The ICC was established to prevent genoncide and "ethnic cleansing" as occured in Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

Apparantly someone took them seriously.

[The Magistrate]

99. The Powers Of The World, Sir

Did not send their representatives to Geneva half a century ago to end the practice of warfare as they knew it, nor did they somehow manage to do it inadvertantly in the course of their negotiations and deliberations. They sought some mitigation of it, and the explicit criminalization of the gross atrocities that had marked the activities of the Axis Powers in the Second World War, and that is all. No war has ever been conducted without harm to non-combatants, no war ever will be conducted without harm to non-combatants, and a good deal of such harm is not criminal. That is certainly a reason for a person to oppose war in general, as it is a leading reason for any entity contemplating war to think long and hard about the full implications of what it is considering.

But any line of argument that insists on drawing a claim of identity between such events as are occuring today in Lebanon and the events in Rwanda or even in the late Balkan war, is mere rhetorical excess. The quantity of corpses in Lebanon is quite insufficient for the thing to be sound. In about the same span of time as the Lebanon episode has consumed to date, hundreds of thousands had been butchered in Rwanda, and done to death by a mass movement with no other purpose but the murders, and without even a shadow of real provocation. The aim of leading particpants in the Balkan war was expansion of borders and dispossession and massacre of ethnic minorities within their borders, and the efforts were marked by many thousands of killings, many of helpless persons in custody of the killers. No one seriously pretends there is any intent by Israel either to expunge the population of Lebanon totally, or to resettle the place with its own people on the basis of a claim it lay within its borders at an earlier date. Such claims could certainly be advanced in relation to the conflict between Israel and Arab Palestine, but not to the present events in Lebanon.

[The Magistrate]

32. That Is An Interesting Article, Sir

It prompts consideration of several points.

First, that fighters conceal their identity from their neighbors does not mean they do not live and move among them. The only question is whether, at the present time, all are mobilized, or there remain reserves still scattered among the populace.

Second, that it is quite clear Hezbollah does establish facilities in residential areas where it is certain that persons not afiliated with the organization will be harmed if these are attacked. In a situation where the organization itself is a party to hostilities, such facilities are legitimate targets, or at the least wil be presumed legitimate targets by the other oarty to the histilities.

Third, the division of an organization such as this into civil and military wings is no different than the division of an ordinary government into various bureaus. All elements of a government at war are subject to attack by its foe, whether political centers or nationalized industrial plants or other enterprises. The thing is a whole, with the military elements deriving a portion of their strength from the rest.

[bryant69]

34. As for Point 3. Except that Hezbollah has has it's goal

The elimination of Israel. And it's not actually a government.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[The Magistrate]

46. As A Practical Matter, Sir

It seems most useful to regard organizations like this as a species of government and state: though they are wholly private organizations without the trappings of state legitimacy, they function in all ways similarly to governments and states. Nor is the purpose of such an organization material to how it functions. That would be the same if its purpose were revolution against the government where it operates, or resistance to a foreign occupation, or even the personal enrichment of its members and leadership, or any other purpose conceivable. That this particular organization is indeed dedicated to the destruction of a neighboring state will certainly define relations between it and that state, and move persons who do not agree that state ought to be destroyed to regard the organization as an object of hostility, as well as moving persons who have scant regard for that state to view it in another light than that.

[bryant69]

49. The question is what sort of future accomedation is possible

ANd the answer I get from DU is that there isn't one. Either we have to get rid of Israel or we have to get rid of the Palestines, Hamas, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran (and so on and so forth).

But if there was a possibiliy of a raproachment, I would say that Israel does not seem to have as a permanent goal, the destruction of Lebanon (yeah I know some zionist fuck back in the 1940s said they would conquer to the euphates, but I'm not sure that's the goal now). If Hezbollah gave up it's call for the destruction of Israel, possibly there could be something worked out - but so far they haven't and it doesn't seem like they are going to. Rather I think their stance vis a vis israel is so much a part of what Hezbollah means, that they can't give it up.

But more and more I am convinced that one can only approach this conflict from a stand point of nihilism.

[The Magistrate]

59. Probably, Sir, No Accomodation Is Possible

Hezbollah will not give up that goal. Its leaders are convinced it can be achieved, and a part of that conviction is their profound belief it is a work their god demands of them, and will see to the success of. Their neutralization could be more readily achieved if great numbers of people ceased to believe success in that goal were possible or desireable, for they would then become isolated and easier to kill or capture. Short of loss of faith in their god, which cannot be counted on as an element of any plan or program, there is no other way. But complete destruction of Hezbollah, in the present situation, is not a practical possibility either. The fact is that neither party can achieve its stated goals, and the pointlessness of their efforts is something both leaderships must spend a good deal of effort hiding from themselves.

The destruction and annexation of Lebanon is certainly no policy goal of any Israeli government, neither in the past nor now or in any forseeable future.

[oberliner]

79. Nor is Arab genocide.

Your comment:

"The destruction and annexation of Lebanon is certainly no policy goal of any Israeli government, neither in the past nor now or in any forseeable future."

I would add that neither is Arab genocide.

And I think it is the responsibility of progressives to correct that mis-perception help by some among our ranks.

[treestar]

39. This is all about the confusion caused by whether or not

terrorist attacks are acts of war.

The Israelis will condemn their opponents for terrorism as if it would be better if they only had an army. If the "Palestinian Army" attacked them in a formal military attack, they'd presumably be OK with it? Or at least not object because it was "terrorism." Terrorism seems to be the weapon of the weak.

So a terrorist attack is made (a suicide bomber on a bus in Israel, or 911). The US and Israel treat it as a military attack and respond with war against the country "harboring the terrorists." Yet strangely, the counter response would be more in the line of a terrorist attack in the territory the terrorists came from. The motive for the terrorists remains obscure in that they must know they will get it back in military hardware and that it will be much harder on they themselves. So there is not much logic for them to "support" the terrorist attacks. Imagine being a peaceful Palestinian and just wishing they'd stop, because of the way you come in for the collective punishment.

Also what would happen if actual military soldiers "hid among civilians?" That would make it more or less excusable? I doubt it would make any difference.

There is always a blatant attempt to cloud the issue with these labels, to try to force you into unconditional support for all Israeli actions.

[Lance_Boyle]

43. If a civilian is a member of Likud/Kadima, is s/he really a civilian?

Is there any confusion over what those political parties want to do to the Arabs?

[bryant69]

45. Apparently not.

Let them all go to hell.

[leftofthedial]

50. yes. a civilian is a civilian

why does every Israel apologist at DU equate criticism of Israel murdering civilians with support for Hezbollah?

[bryant69]

53. I suppose for the same reason

every Hezbollah apologist at DU equates criticism of Hezbollah with support for Israel's murdering of children.

[leftofthedial]

55. I've been reading the Israel-Hezbollah threads here

And participating in more than a few.

I have encountered at least twenty Israel apologists and zero Hezbollah apologists

No one here supports Hezbollah's terrorist acts, but plenty seem to think it's okay when Likudists fire missiles indiscriminitately into residential areas and methodically destoys the infrastructure of an independent nation.

[treestar]

74. Exactly, there are no Hezbollah "apologists" or "supporters"

It's just name calling when someone has no answer to an issue raised.

[sweetheart]

66. Its hard to tell when everyone is wearing black pajamas nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. A difference was drawn between membership of Sinn Fein and the IRA

although the former supported the latter, and they shared an aim.

[treestar]

76. I wonder if the mere formation of a political party in an Arab

country, who has destruction of Israel as a plank of its platform, is enough to justify Israel killing civilians in that country (including people who oppose said political party and that plank).


The problem with the Israeli approach is they indiscriminately kill some people who might have had more moderate views towards Israel. In the process, that leaves survivors more hardened against Israel.

[cosmik debris]

77. There are no civilians in war

Hitler proved that in the London Blitz.

We proved it at Dresden and Hiroshima.

The Japanese proved it at Nanking.

There are no civilians in war. Get over it.

[The Stranger]

83. So is a civilian a civilian?

Wow, it is amazing the type of mental acrobatics we are seeing attempted on DU today.

[bryant69]

84. Yes they are all civilians.

And almost all guilty. Almost all Israelis are guilty of supporting a government that kills Lebanese civilians. And almost all southern lebanese are guilty of supporting an organization that kills Israeli civilians.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

87. That is the same logic Osama uses

All Americans are guilty because we support * with our taxes.

I'm not buying it.

[bryant69]

89. You don't have to buy it.

It's either true or it isn't.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

90. And it isn't.

It certainly has no logical validity.

[bryant69]

92. How does it have no logical validity?

Saying something doesn't make it so. We paide for missles that are killing Lebanese civilians - how are we not morally responsible? Just because it's painful for us to contemplate?

Bryant

[reality based]

93. I suppose there was a time when the US Government would have told the

Israelis to back off if they wanted to keep getting supplied with arms.

[cosmik debris]

94. I don't pay taxes. I'm retired

I didn't vote for Bush, I'm a Democrat. How can you possibly hold me responsible for Bush's actions. Do I have to storm the palace to absolve myself of the guilt of living in America?

Generalizations are not valid arguments.

[bryant69]

95. Well than you are innocent. Congratulations.

I on the other hand pay taxes, so I am guilty of all the crimes our country is now committing in Israel and in Iraq.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[cosmik debris]

96. And you were wrong

to place guilt on people you don't know. You are looking for scapegoats and your emotions got the better of you. The act of living in Israel, America or Lebanon is not an act of war. Those people are no more guilty than the citizens of Hiroshima, Dresden, or Nanking.

You have to deal with your own guilt, but please don't transfer it to people you never met.

[bryant69]

97. The people of Israel support their government

The people of Southern Lebanon - the bulk of them, support Hezbollah. If I have to pay for my crimes why should they get off?

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

98. There you go again

with your generalizations. Give me the names of the people you say are guilty. Show me some evidence that any individual is guilty and I will believe that the individual is guilty. But you cannot convict a group of people based on the geographic location of their residence. You are being absurd.

[bryant69]

100. I guess I don't have the same kind of rose-colored glasses

that you do.

[cosmik debris]

102. And you don't have the discipline in Logic

or Reason that I have. May I suggest that you purchase a book on Logic and give it a read. It will certainly improve your debating skills.

[Warren Stupidity]

106. At some point as we descend into fascism, yes.

Did not the Germans, even those retired and not paying taxes, have an obligation to 'storm the palace'?

[cosmik debris]

107. At some point, yes

But I don't believe that we are to the point where a civil war is an appropriate response to the current threat. Now if they steal a couple of more elections. . .

[Magical]

101. Is a civilian who is a member

of the Republican party, or any American for that matter, really a civilian?

After all, the Republican Party has led the US in wars of aggression murdering tens of thousands of innocents.

Did those little children murdered by Israeli/US bombs support Hezbollah ?

[Snivi Yllom]

103. Yes they are cviilians, they are not part of the Lebanese army

Their full time job might be to belong to Hezbollah, but even if so, and they do not belong to the Lebanese army, they are civilians.