coun·ter·pro·duc·tive adj. – Tending to hinder rather than serve one’s purpose (link)
(11:18:26 AM) doinkicarus: well, the argument is that “If Lebanon cannot control the radicals within its own borders, and those radicals are attacking a sovereign, said sovereign has the legitimate right to defend itself against the radicals.” But Lebanon either cannot, or will not restrain Hezbollah – doinkicarus: and that’s a problem.
(11:19:12 AM) fatneck68: because they are re building country that essentially just gained autonomy and independence in 2000; that’s when the israeli occupation ended, and Lebanon was able to start to rebuild government, military, [civilian] infrastructure. [How is a] 6 year old nation (for all practical purposes) … supposed to rein in a group like hezbollah
The United States is looking at a double edged sword here, on the one hand we work for Israel, lets not be foolish and think its the other way around. We claim to want to establish a cease fire but we want to give Israel at least another week to bombard the Lebanese people. In another week there wont be any chance at saving Lebanon. The country is in shambles now, the airport is closed, ports are being attacked and major highways and bridges are destroyed. This will be no short term turnaround, this will take years and years to fix all because Israel was targeting a terrorist group by blowing up everything but terrorists. Let us not forget this isnt a conflict between two nations, but a nation and a militia
(11:20:06 AM) fatneck68: and why do they have to be [called] radicals, that’s a media spin… i dont know that they are any more radical than Israel…
(11:20:18 AM) doinkicarus: But Israel’s stance is, basically, “If this is what you’re going to do with your freedom, then fuck yourselves.”
Here is the picture of destroyed… well, somethings that look an awful lot like bombed out apartment buildings, if you ask me. (picture via WaPo):
I understand and accept that Israel wants Hezbollah under control. But her actions and her rhetoric on this issue are not congruent. Israel wants Lebanon to control the militant Hezbollah, and towards this end, she attacks Lebanon’s military? And the US apparently supports these tactics, because although our government urges the sides to move towards a cease-fire, we are apparently content enough with the situation to let Israel complete whatever objectives it has in mind. Ostensibly, this means neutralizing the Hezbollah threat. There is no shortage of evidence suggesting Israel’s actions are doing nothing of the sort.
[Lebanese Prime Minister] Siniora has privately warned the Bush administration that by bombing so many targets in Lebanon, Israel is undermining its own strategic goals. Lebanese are angry with Hezbollah for starting the war by kidnapping Israeli soldiers, and most want to see the militia under government control. But Siniora has asked why the Israelis are hitting Lebanese airports, ports, roads, villages and other targets that primarily affect civilians. And he has criticized attacks on the Lebanese army, which even the Israelis say is the key to long-run stability and security.
Counterproductive actions will rarely, if ever, yield productive results. Destroying the civilian infrastructure, and treating their apparent plight as some sort of far-removed collateral damage does nothing to aid in the peace-process, and many would argue that it only provokes the militant groups, and provides significant impetus for the swelling of the radical fronts. Moderate arabs may much more easily be moved to radicalism when confronted with the murder of their friends, families and compatriots by indiscriminate fire-bombing of civilian targets. When one openly and publicly declares that the actions are being undertaken because of Lebanon’s acquiescence, or inability to deal with the radicals – but at all times Israel would prefer that Lebanon deal with them internally, I think it goes without saying that destroying the very military that you’ve charged with “reining in” the Hezbollah forces, is the definition of counterproductive.
many would argue that it only provokes the militant groups
then many would be wrong. Provoke them into doing what? launching rockets into Israel every day for more than 6 years, over 6000 rockets in total?
From kidnapping, and killing Israeli soldiers within Israel’s sovereign territory?
Oh wait they already did that.
Moderate arabs may much more easily be moved to radicalism when confronted with the murder of their friends, families and compatriots by indiscriminate fire-bombing of civilian targets.
there is no indiscriminate fire bombing going on in Lebanon.
Israel is using laser guided bombs and missles, and other “smart” weaponry. Unlike the Hezbollah terrorists who are intentionally targeting civilians.
If Israel were fire bombing you would have tens of thousands of casualties not hundreds.
by the way if Hezbollah would allow the Lebanese civilians to evacuate the battlefield as the Israelis asked them to do; the civilian casualties would be greatly reduced.
so you would have me believe that the 10:1 casualty ratio that typifies the Arab/Israeli conflicts is a result of Israel’s benevolence?
You cannot justifiably cite the fact that Israel uses “guided smart bombs” and neglect the thousands of innocents that those smart-weapons have killed over the years – precisely the thing which smart-weaponry is supposed to avoid.
You seem to be admitting that Israel wants to fight Hezbollah alone – but since they can’t do that easily, they’re more than willing (and you’re OK with this) to kill hundreds of innocents in the process.
Charming.
Comon Donk, lets have an honest discussion ok?
Israel asked the civilians to leave in order to prevent civilian casualties. Can we agree on that?
If not can we at least agree on the fact that they did ask the civilians to leave?
Can we agree on the fact that Hezbollah is refusing to allow civilians to leave?
Can we agree that Hezbollah, and Hamas intentionally hide behind civilians?
I anxiously await your reply.
excuse me, doink; this mispelling was unintentionall.
I was not aware of the fact that Israel asked civilians to leave – so that’s cool. Good for them. “Leave your house so we can blow the fuck out of it!” Talk about a decision made under duress…
But anyways, I was hearing reports on MSNBC yesterday morning that Israel had been bombing the bridges and highways leading North. Where would you ahve them go, when all the roads are rubble? Asking them to leave, under these circumstances, is pure politics. They don’t give a shit if the civilians are there or not – if they did, Israel wouldn’t be bombing the roads and bridges.
It is a start.
Please don’t believe me. Look it up for yourself and not on Al Jazeera.
Israel dropped leaflets all over Lebanon warning civilians of the pending attacks. They have done so for several days. Yesterday they called every home in Lebanon south of the Latani river and asked them to leave.
They do have roads and bridges to use.
Hezbollah turned them back with guns.
You tell me who wants more civilians deaths?
Israel is trying to push Hezbollah out of rocket range of Israel. Across the Latani should limit the damage they can do to Israel.
130 Hezbollah rockets hit Israel today.
btw the number of casualties is not a sign of disproportionality. It is a sign of good war fighting. In WW2 The US suffered about 100,000 casualties in the pacific theatre. Japan lost 2 million men in uniform, and 600,000 civilians.
TRUA -
It is not my intention to indemnify the actions of groups like Hezbollah, nor do I approve of them. I think that injustices are being committed on both sides of the line, and failure to recognize this is an injustice in itself. Most of the media I’ve seen has basically turned a blind eye to Israel’s actions, if they have not been outspoken supporters for her cause – the tone is basically, “It’s too bad that Israel has to do this to the innocents, but since they feel they have to, well, it’s ok.”
I’ll have some more forthcoming later tonight or tomorrow. In the meantime, I do thank you for the discussion.