![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kyburgSo 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 03:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 03:59 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 06:08 pm (UTC)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....
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 07:03 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 07:31 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 07:50 pm (UTC)Not a solution. Never was.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 07:53 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 08:16 pm (UTC)Israel's not targeting people based on their looks. It's bombing places where the rockets are coming from.
The correlation would be - your stalker is shooting at you from XYZ bush, so you strafe the bush.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 08:18 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 08:19 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 08:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 08:24 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 08:24 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 08:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 08:29 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 08:37 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 08:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 08:54 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 09:02 pm (UTC)There is a huge difference - a crucial difference - between accidental civilian casualties during an armed conflict and deliberately walking onto a school bus and blowing up all the children there.
There is no way to conduct a war without some civilian casualties. That's different from deliberately attacking children and people sitting down in a hotel to eat a holy meal and people going into nightclubs. It's also different from what Hezbollah is doing now. Hezbollah is indiscriminately bombing civilian targets, not even making an effort to bomb military targets.
And destroying Lebanon will not solve the problem because an unstable Lebanon will allow other groups to take control and further threaten Israel.
I don't think the purpose of the Israeli attack is to destroy Lebanon. It's to destroy the terrorist infrastructure in Lebanon that is currently bombing Israel.
I don't know whether it will be successful. I don't pretend to be a military expert, and I doubt you are either. The people running the gov't in Israel ARE experts, though, and they know a lot more about Lebanon than we do, so I give them the benefit of the doubt.
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.
you're right. I was just commenting about how MPR (which is really the only news I listen to because TV news is dumb) has covered the damage in Lebanon and Gaza - but has reported NOTHING on the bombings in Israel, the Israelis evacuated or living in bomb shelters, etc.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 09:06 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 09:11 pm (UTC)Not making your argument here. If you were aiming for where the bombs were coming from, they'd be aiming elsewhere.
I can assure you, they know where Israel got their weapons. US. And that's who they're going to be coming after - while they're escalating the bids with Israel, who seems more than happy to accommodate them.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 09:23 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 09:26 pm (UTC)Find the perps. Arrest them. Take them out of commission.
Naaaah. That would make sense!
HATE ALWAYS WORKS BETTER.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 09:40 pm (UTC)How are they supposed to magically "find" these people? Like the Lebonese people are going to cooperate, and hand over the guerilla terrorist population when the Israeli cops come into Lebanon? Or maybe you think that Israelis have amazing abilities to disguise themselves as Lebonese people and act undercover like in a movie to catch the terrorists. Or possibly the terrorists are just going to sit there out in the open and wait to be arrested? They wouldn't, you know, skip town and chill in Iraq for awhile or something, or even just move to the next town when the Israelis show up?
Even if the Israelis did happen across a terrorist, how on earth would they KNOW the person was a terrorist? Terrorists do not have signs around their necks. They LIVE in Lebanon. They are LEBONESE. How are these Israeli cops supposed to be able to pick out the terrorists?
It's just not that easy. Heck, WE can't even find the terrorists in Iraq, and the US has about 100x more people than Israel (literally).
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 09:45 pm (UTC)