I hate repeating my political adolescence -

[kyburg]

So let me quote someone who can speak to the situations better than I can:

The new war in the Middle East
by Jim Rice

What is the proper, appropriate response of a nation to violent attacks by terrorists or other radical extremists? We have seen one model illustrated in the response of the British government to last year's attacks on London's public transportation system, in which 52 people were killed and 700 injured. The British rightly understood the attacks as terrorist acts, but responded in a measured manner, dealing both with the investigation of the terrible crime and the need for enhanced security in its wake. Pointedly, the British did not opt for a military response to these acts of terror.

We have also, of course, seen an altogether different model of response, perhaps most clearly exemplified by the U.S. invasion of two countries - one of which was an actual source of the terror - following the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001.

Unfortunately, it seems to be in the latter spirit that Israel responded to terror attacks in the past fortnight. Provoked by the Hamas kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, Israel not only invaded the northern Gaza Strip but also destroyed a significant portion of Gaza's infrastructure, including airstrikes against Gaza's power grid.

Likewise, days later, when the Syrian-backed terror group Hezbollah seized the opportunity to raid northern Israel and capture two Israeli soldiers, Israel responded with a massive attack on Lebanon's civilian structures, from the Beirut airport to a dairy factory, civilian buses, bridges, power stations, and medical facilities, according to reports. Hezbollah responded by firing hundreds of rockets a day - more-modern, longer-range rockets than in the past - aimed intentionally at neighborhoods in Haifa and other Israeli cities. The result, not surprisingly, has been the death of many civilians on all sides.

The situation is clearly complicated by the role of Hezbollah as a part of the coalition government of Lebanon, which seems unable or unwilling (probably both) to disarm Hezbollah, which effectively controls the southern part of the country. The new warfare in the Middle East is also made worse by the sinister political manipulations of both Syria and Iran, who seek to increase their own power in the region no matter the human cost.

But Israel's use of military attacks in response to acts of terror raises many questions. The most important, perhaps, revolves around the issue of legitimate self defense vs. collective punishment. Israel is indeed surrounded by sworn enemies, including many who are demonstrably willing to violently destroy Israel. But does the real need for security justify the massively disproportionate response to an act of terror? Is the collective punishment of an entire population ever morally and ethically justified? As Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Vatican Secretary of State, put it in statement July 14, "The Holy See condemns both the terrorist attacks on the one side and the military reprisals on the other," stating that Israel's right to self-defense "does not exempt it from respecting the norms of international law, especially as regards the protection of civilian populations." The statement said further, "In particular, the Holy See deplores the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation."

Even apart from the ethical questions raised by Israel's massive retaliation, there are significant issues of efficacy: Does it work? Is Israel made more secure by a militarized approach? Israel has destroyed 42 bridges in Lebanon this week, along with 38 roads, communications equipment, factories, runways and fuel depots at the Beirut airport, and the main ports of Beirut and Tripoli. And along with the material devastation, the attacks constitute a terrible, possibly even fatal, threat to Lebanon's fragile and fledgling democracy.

Does the destruction of much of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, so painstakingly rebuilt after years of civil war and occupation by both Israeli and Syrian forces, bode well for future peace between the neighboring states? In sum, will the Israeli attacks bring long-term security for Israel, or will they further ensure that the next generation of Lebanese and Palestinians - across the theological and political spectrum - grow up with an undying hatred in their hearts?

The violence of Hezbollah and Hamas should be unequivocally condemned and opposed. It cannot be ignored or underestimated that the two terrorist organizations have as their goal the eradication of Israel. However, much U.S. media coverage of this new Middle East war paints a misleading picture of a tit-for-tat equivalency between the two sides: Hezbollah explodes a bomb in Israel, Israel responds in kind. While their intentions are indeed malevolent, the two terrorist groups have nowhere near the military capability of Israel, which wields one of the most powerful military forces in the world (with the aid, of course, of more than $3 billion per year from the United States). The death toll in Lebanon in the first six days of the war has been tenfold that in Israel - according to The New York Times, 310 people, most of them civilians, have died in Lebanon while Israel has suffered 27 casualties, 15 of them civilians, since Israel began its attacks. (Similarly, 4,064 Palestinians and 1,084 Israelis have been killed since Sept. 29, 2000, according to the Palestine Red Crescent Society and the Israel Defense Forces, respectively.)

One of the most difficult aspects of trying to be a peacemaker in the Middle East context is the "separation wall" of understanding between the two peoples. The very definition of what is happening is understood in vastly different ways by the two sides. Supporters of Israel see the country attacked by its sworn enemies, and see in its response a necessary and justified act of national self-defense. Others see the region's most powerful military force (supported by the world's most powerful military force) illegally occupying Palestinian land and engaging in massive, disproportionate attacks on innocent civilians.

As Christians committed to the cause of peace, our role is not to "take sides" in the struggle, in the traditional sense, but rather to constantly stand for the "side" of a just and secure peace. We can ignore neither the horror of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians (including direct attacks on school children) nor the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories (with all its "collateral damage" to Palestinian children). We must have the vision and courage to stand against the acts of violence by terrorist organizations, as well as the massive state violence by the region's military superpower, while avoiding the trap of positing a false "equivalency" between actions that are not equal.

We cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed by the political, strategic, and moral complexity of the situation to stand back and do nothing. A first step toward a more comprehensive resolution is an immediate operational cease-fire. But that must be followed by a new way of thinking because, as a U.N. official put it yesterday, "The Middle East is littered with the results of people believing there are military solutions to political problems in the region."

Jim Rice is editor of Sojourners magazine.

A few things that can be done:

Be consistent in denouncing the violence of both sides - especially when it is deliberately aimed at civilians (or targets where great civilian "collateral damage" will be the result).

Pray for the emergence of new political leadership on both sides - both of which seem bereft of creative, courageous, moral, or even pragmatic leadership.

Challenge any religious voices that seem utterly one-sided, completely neglecting the suffering and legitimate grievances of both sides.

Pray for new ways for Christians and our churches to join our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters in finding real and practical solutions for a just peace in the Middle East where two states can live with security and democracy.

And pray for better solutions than endless war to solve the real threats of terrorism in our world, because if we fail, all of our children will be at risk.

Comments

[n6vfp.livejournal.com]

Collective punishment does not work toward a solution nor does it establish a measure of retribution that can be justified. All this war is doing is creating more death and suffering on people powerless in the face of political ideologies they may or may not embrace. No, this 'war' and our tacit support of this 'war' make me sick.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

Israel is not trying to "punish" Lebanon, it's trying to destroy terrorist infrastructure so that the terrorists will no longer be able to bomb Haifa, etc. as they are currently doing.

[n6vfp.livejournal.com]

If this is not collective punishment is Israel going to rebuild Lebanon after this is finished? Are you saying that any and all targets in Lebanon are 'military' in nature? There are now billions of dollars in destruction in Lebanon done by the Israeli Army and Air Force. How come we hear reports of hundreds of civilian casualties from Lebanon and less than 100 from Israel? I don't see this 'war' as anything but collective punishment of the Lebanese people.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

Are you saying that any and all targets in Lebanon are 'military' in nature?

No.


How come we hear reports of hundreds of civilian casualties from Lebanon and less than 100 from Israel?

Israel's got better cement bunkers to put its civilians in.

Are you basically saying here that the more moral side is the one w/more casualties?


I don't see this 'war' as anything but collective punishment of the Lebanese people.

I do. I see it as a country trying its best to stop bombs coming from across its borders. I don't know about you, but if Canada started bombing my house, I'd sure as hell expect the US military to take the steps necessary to stop that.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

this is kind of dumb:

The British rightly understood the attacks as terrorist acts, but responded in a measured manner, * * * Pointedly, the British did not opt for a military response to these acts of terror.

We have also, of course, seen an altogether different model of response, perhaps most clearly exemplified by the U.S. invasion of two countries - one of which was an actual source of the terror

uh. Was the author not aware that the British ALSO supported and CONTINUE to provide troops and support for the war in Iraq?

Also, I'm pretty sure that if the British started getting continual bombing from Ireland, they probably wouldn't just "increase security" (whatever that means).

Also, this whole article basically reads: Hezbollah is naughty, Israel is being attacked, but it's naughty to hit back so Israel should stop doing so - but somehow doesn't even think to CONSIDER calling on, e.g., Lebanon to stop bombing Israel. It's like Israel is the only one who's supposed to be patient and forbearing, just sucking it up when its citizens are kidnapped and bombed.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Well, is it wrong to expect Israel (who everyone expects to be more intelligent and moral) to behave differently when they are attacked?

Let's face it. He makes a good point about the amount of force being returned in kind; the Brits overseas have never behaved in as civilized fashion as they do at home (Raj, anyone?) - and it's pretty clear at this point that Bush is leading Blair around by the privates.

Israel can lob as much firepower as it wishes against anyone - and is. When they are this well supported, is it wrong to expect them to come to some other kind of conclusion besides lowering themselves to the same level as their attackers?

When the only tool you have is a hammer....

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

who everyone expects to be more intelligent and moral

How is it fair (or useful to Israel) if they have to keep on being "fair and moral" to people who keep, not to put too fine a point on it, killing their people?

Say you have a stalker who keeps beating you up. The police have a "oh well, boys will be boys!" attitude about it. And any time you try to defend yourself, YOU get booked for assault. When you go before a judge, the judge says, "well, it's true that he was beating you up, but you really shouldn't have hit back. It's wrong to hit people, and also, he's just a male. Males aren't capable of NOT hitting people, so it is up to you, as a female, to be more intelligent and moral and find some way to stop him w/out resorting to this naughty violence."

How long would it be before you shot EVERYONE in this scenario in the head? Or before your stalker just kills you? And then everyone says wow, that was really naughty, stalker. Seriously, we don't approve of that at all. We're going to have a rememberance day.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

So when one guy hits you, you buy a Hummer and run over the crowds at the local football game - oh yeah - remember to get the ones that look like the guy that hit you.

Not a solution. Never was.

[turandot.livejournal.com]

Lebanon as a whole is not Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a jihadist faction of former Palestinians that has somehow occupied southern Lebanon (possibly thanks to Israel and Syria fighting out who got to control Lebanon, which caused a violent civil war from which Lebanon was just now starting to recover), but many of them are neither Lebanese, nor speaking for the Lebanese. For Israel to continue ignoring that fact is to practically invite the Lebanese government (who would probably try to rein in HA if they were not being pressed to deal with the threat of bombs falling on its civiliam poluation) to eventually side with Hezbollah (so far as I know, the Lebanese government has condemned HA's actions, and has pledged to try and get rid of them as best as it can).

The problem I see with Israel is that if they are really trying to get HA to leave them the fuck alone, they should actually go after Syria and Iran, who are the two states in the region who are responsible for supplying them with the weapons that are used both to hurt Israel and to keep innocent Lebanese civilians under their thumb. Figure out where the weapons come from, and go after the factories, no? But no, that would make sense, to pressure Syria and Iran to stop fucking with Israel. Why do that, when Israel can turn around and bomb the Lebanese, thus playing into HA's game of using the Lebanese civilians as human shields?

To use a version of your own analogy below: a stalker breaks into your home and threatens you with a gun; you pull a gun on them, so the stalker breaks into your neighbor's house to hide; he takes your neighbor hostage, and refuses to leave his house. Would your first choice be to shoot up your neighbor's house indiscriminately, possibly catching said neighbor in the crossfire, or would you try other avenues first?

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

but many of them are neither Lebanese, nor speaking for the Lebanese.

Hezbollah is an elected and recognized major faction of the Lebanese government!

The problem I see with Israel is that if they are really trying to get HA to leave them the fuck alone, they should actually go after Syria and Iran, who are the two states in the region who are responsible for supplying them with the weapons that are used both to hurt Israel and to keep innocent Lebanese civilians under their thumb.

Let's be realistic. Israel is going into Lebanon because that's where the bombs are coming from. Syria is not shelling Israel. Iran is not shelling Israel. Lebanon is - or, if you prefer, people inside Lebanon are sending out bombs from Lebanon into Israel.

Therefore, Israel has what most of the world will recognize as a legitimate reason to retaliate against Lebanon. Israel doesn't have what the world would recognize as a legitimate reason to retaliate against Syria.

To extend the extrapolation - if someone shoots at my house from X house, I might shoot back at X house (assuming the police won't intervene), but I can't go to the gun store and shoot at the gun salesman.

To use a version of your own analogy below: a stalker breaks into your home and threatens you with a gun; you pull a gun on them, so the stalker breaks into your neighbor's house to hide; he takes your neighbor hostage, and refuses to leave his house.

The neighbor is hardly hostage, and is making no effort at all to stop the stalker from shooting at me from the neighbor's house. Assuming that there is no police force to protect me, I would have no CHOICE but to defend myself.


would you try other avenues first?

I'm curious as to what you think the magic other avenues might be? You're being shot at in your own home by the maniac across the street. Want to go over and give him a hug? There are two words for people who try that: 1) stupid and 2) dead.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Or you could just do what India did when they got bombed.

Find the perps. Arrest them. Take them out of commission.

Naaaah. That would make sense!

HATE ALWAYS WORKS BETTER.

[turandot.livejournal.com]

Hezbollah is an elected and recognized major faction of the Lebanese government

I think you might be confusing Hezbollah with Hamas. While Hamas did win a majority vote in the last Palestinian elections, Hezbollah is at best a minority party, albeit it had managed to make allies with other parties within the government. But again, they don't speak for the entirety of the Lebanese government, nor its people. But don't take my word for it: take his. And if you don't care for that, read this.

Or, heck, read this woman's journal: when the war started, she was actually on your side. Now that she's actually seen most of her city shelled, and seen firsthand that just about anything from ambulances to food supply trucks have been hit by Israeli rocket, I'm surprised she's still willing to keep an open mind about the matter.

The neighbor is hardly hostage, and is making no effort at all to stop the stalker from shooting at me from the neighbor's house.

Lebanon was in a civil war from 1975 to 1989. That war ended with an agreement in which Syria de facto took over Lebanon militarily and politically. They didn't withdraw until 2005. They are still using some government factions as puppets within Lebanon (case in point: Hezbollah). How, exactly do you expect most of the actual neighbors (i.e., the Lebanese people, not the politicians) to do anything about it? Historically speaking, they've always been unwillingly caught in the middle of Syria and Israel's crossfighting.

Hezbollah's Army is actually armed and active within the country in which they hide - many civilians who'd like nothing better than for their country to be left alone to rebuild it to reflect their voices do not have any weapons, and are being subjected to daily bombing. How much of an effort do you expect them to make when their main daily goal has become personal survival?

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

I agree. The author is, in my opinion, naiive and disconnected from reality.

Reality: this is barbarians vs. civilized people. Islamic supremacists (barbarians) have attacked the (civilized) state of Israel. Their goal is to exterminate the Israelis. They have tried to do this by military means over and over again since 1948 to no success. Now, they are trying to do so by criminal means (terrorism). Since they cannot beat the Israelis on the battlefield in open combat, they are fighting them covertly, killing Israeli civilians in the streets and retreating behind their own civilians to escape Israeli retaliation. In essence, they are using the difference between civilized people (who care about civilian deaths) and barbarians (to whom individual human life is meaningless) as a force multiplier, relying on the civilized Israelis' compunctions against killing noncombatants to protect them from retaliation.

This presents the Israelis with three choices: continue to fight the terrorists piecemeal, as they have been doing since 1973; fight an all-out war that will destroy the barbarians' ability to attack them by any means; or surrender. The first choice leads to stalemate -- and endless war of attrition. This is an evil outcome. The second will solve the problem, but many non-combatants will be killed by accident. (This is how we won World War II.) This, too, is an evil outcome. The third choice leads to a second Holocaust -- another evil outcome.

(When two civilized nations go to war a fourth choice -- negotiation and compromise -- is possible. Sadlly, this alternative is not possible in this case.)

With the choices limited to three evils, the only moral choice is to choose the least evil of the three. In this case, the least evil choice is to fight an all-out war that will destroy the barbarians' ability to attack them by any means.

That is what the civilized nations of the world had to do in World War Two to defeat fascist barbarism, and that is what the civilized nations of the world will have to do -- sooner or later -- to defeat Islamic barbarism as well.

Sorry if that doesn't sit well, but that's reality.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Really, these are two groups of people using barbaric methods on each other. Period.

The only way, under the current methods, for this to end. Extermination of both sides. If that's what you want, that's well under way.

Wars don't decide who's civilized or barbaric; they decide who's left standing at the end.

Honestly. The only people benefiting from this process are the terrorists. They're having a field day. They're getting exactly what they wanted.

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

I don't mean to be rude, but, with respect, you are wrong on this issue. These are not two groups of people using barbaric methods on each other. The Israelis are making war in a civilized fashion -- i.e. making every effort to avoid killing noncombatants, using precision-guided munitions only for attacks on military targets; the Islamonazis are conversely attempting to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible, using unguided Katyusha 9and other) missiles fired indiscriminately into the biggest city they can reach (Haifa).

And it will not end in extermination on both sides. There will never be another Endlösung. The State of Israel was created for that very reason. The Israeli Navy has missile submarines to ensure that. Even if every Jew in Israel is killed, those submarines will still be there, and you can rest assured their commanders will not hesitate to push the Big Button, just as our sub commanders would in similar circumstances.

Wars don't decide who's civilized or barbaric. People do that. In the case of this war, the Islamic Arabs in Hizbollah and Hamas have revealed themselves as barbarians by attacking a peaceful nation. Civilized people wok out their differences peacefully.

Honestly. The only people benefiting from this process are the terrorists. They're having a field day. They're getting exactly what they wanted.

No they're not. A good many of them are getting dead, which is of benefit to everyone. The ones that are not dead are on the run, in hiding, or safe in some other country. (For now.)

Killing Nazis and Japanese fascists in World War II was a positive moral good, and the world is a better place because of it. Killing modern-day Nazis and Islamic terrorists is a positive moral good as well -- and that is what the IDF is doing. I wish them good hunting.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

Really, these are two groups of people using barbaric methods on each other.

No, there's really a big difference in tactics, etc. Israelis don't target school busses full of children, they don't kidnap classes and slaughter them. They don't target Islamic holy sites or holy celebrations, they don't walk into hotels full of people sitting down to seder and strafe the place.

What they are trying to do in Lebanon is what we did in Afghanistan: taking out terrorist infrastructure, from which bombs are currently coming.

I think you're falling prey to the liberal tendency to think that to be fair-minded you have to think that both sides of every conflict are equally right and equally wrong. That's not always the case.

[n6vfp.livejournal.com]

I wonder where the Israelis draw the line. Reports I've heard on the media say that 15 schoolchildren in Lebanon were killed when their bus was hit by an Israeli bomb. And destroying Lebanon will not solve the problem because an unstable Lebanon will allow other groups to take control and further threaten Israel.

The media I watch and read are outside the United States, because it seems that in the United States, the media does not report objectively in this incident. One reporter on NPR described the burned out trucks she saw as being very precisely targeted, with the cabs burnt but the loads of produce still intact. There was also a report today of aircraft blowing up a well drilling rig parked in a Christian neighborhood in Beirut. It looks like the Israeli air force targets anything and then uses the convenient excuse that it is somehow related to Hezbollah.

No, both sides are being barbaric. The Israeli Army is attacking Lebanon much like the Germans attacked Britain in WWII, not like we attacked the Germans in WWII.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

In essence, they are using the difference between civilized people (who care about civilian deaths) and barbarians (to whom individual human life is meaningless) as a force multiplier,


what really puts my knickers in a twist is that the terrorists have somehow convinced the rest of the world that it is OK if they kill civilians, target schoolbusses full of children, fire rockets at civilian populations, etc - but if Israel accidentally kills a civilian while, e.g., targeting locations from which rocket fire is coming, then Israel is bad.

The double standard - Israel being held to the ultimate "civilized" standard (one which no other country would EVER accept were they being attacked) and the terrorists being held to a "barbaric" standard ("well, they don't know any better, so it's ok") REALLY frustrates me.

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

Me, too.

FYI: I'm a Catholic, and a lot of my fellow Catholics are in harm's way in Lebanon right now, but that doesn't change the facts. And the facts are that the Israelis have no choice in this sad affair orther than fight or surrender. It's really that simple.

(frozen)

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Problem is, all it takes is one whacko to set things off - nobody ever considers any other path. And Israel, as a country, has never been anything I could consider a stable place to begin with. Might have something to do with the way the place came together in the first place.

I take a lot of cues from my Hindu co-workers these days, who live surrounded by Muslims, much like the Jews do. Some of their holidays center around defending their families from these self-same "Muslims," it goes back that far.

Has anyone forgotten the bombings they've taken in the last month?

I don't see them lobbing things over the fence - something tells me they're going after the perps like any good police force should. You find them, you try them and you convict them.

Likely. But that doesn't make good Fox News coverage. Unless some Muslim group does it again, you probably won't hear much about it.

*checks*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5201922.stm

Well. Whaddya know.

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

what really puts my knickers in a twist is that the terrorists have somehow convinced the rest of the world that it is OK if they kill civilians, target schoolbusses full of children, fire rockets at civilian populations, etc

that's utter bullshit.

ps

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

but if Israel accidentally kills a civilian while, e.g., targeting locations from which rocket fire is coming, then Israel is bad.

you want to know why it's horrifying when israel does those things?

because people think israel's more civilized.

civilized people don't go around killing innocent people.

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

why is israel's methods more civilized? because you agree with the methods?

what is the measure of civilization that you're using here?

Fight The Real Enemy

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Folks, we -- the civilized nations of the world -- are in a war against Nazis here: Islamic Nazis, yes, but real, live, Jew-hating NAZIS nonetheless. There is no negotiating with Nazis. There is no reconciliation with Nazis. There is no compromising with Nazis. There is only one way to deal with Nazis, and that is to KILL THEM, as many of them as you can, as quickly as you can, until they are too few in number and too broken in spirit to try to impose their mad vision of the future upon anyone. And after that? You march in, impose your laws and morals on their people, rebuild their cultures in your image, and indoctrinate their children into believing in the things you believe in, so that the madness their fathers fought for can never rise again.

That is what the United States, Canada, the UK, and the other allies did in World War II, and that is what the Israelis in Lebanon (and our forces elsewhere) are doing now.

And sadly, then as now, a lot of innocent people are going to die horrible meaningless deaths in the process. That is a damned shame, a tragedy, and a tragic waste, but as long as there is war -- and there will always be war -- innocent people are going to be killed accidentally.

But that is no reason not to fight. In every war, the blood of the slain innocents is blood on the hands of those who started the war -- no matter which side kills actually them. The Germans we roasted like chickens in the basements of Dresden died because of Adolf Hitler, not because of Franklin Roosevelt. The Japanese we baked like potatoes in Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not die because Curtis LeMay made a decision in March and August of 1945; they died because of a decision made in December of 1941 by the imperial Japanese government. The poor people being blown to pieces by Israeli bombs right now are not being murdered by Israeli pilots -- they are being sacrificed by the leaders of Hamas and Hizbollah and their Syrian and Iranian backers out of their infernal desire to kill five million Jews in Israel and impose Islam on unwilling people across the world.

We here in North America can whinge and eqivocate and speak words of sweet reason all we care to, but we are free to do so only because two oceans and a circle of cold-blooded American killers stand between us and the wolves -- wolves like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Hassan Nasrallah, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Israelis do not have the luxury of the oceans to hide behind. For them, the circle of cold-blooded Jewish killers is their only hope. And if they fall, the Islamic Nazis will kill every Jew they can find -- the "final solution" to the Middle East crisis.

So go ahead and cry for the innocent. But don't fool yourselves. Those poor folks are dead because of the new Nazis of the Islamic Jihad, not the Jews of Israel.

Ky, thank you for our hospitality, and I apologize for wasting your bandwidth. All particpants are invited to continue this discussion on my LJ, bitpig. I promise all of you the chance to present your views without fear of being banned or treated rudely by me.

[redqueenofevil.livejournal.com]

I don't think prayer is enough. But I agree that denouncing violence on both sides is a start. It's a shame that our leaders won't denounce.

As an aside, I was at a function last weekend, where the crisis came up as a topic for discussion. It was very interesting to note that all of the people who thought Israel was doing a good job were male, and all of the people believing this whole thing to be barbaric were female. This was regardless of their traditional political stance, or religious background (as there was a diverse group in attendence).

We cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed by the political, strategic, and moral complexity of the situation to stand back and do nothing.


This is well said. I really worry about what is happening to our planet right now. Not just because of actions in the Middle East, but because our leaders are so complacant about everything from global warming, to war.