Israel's Response: Self-defense or Revenge?

[gc]

My question is: Is Israel's actions over the past few weeks an act of self-defense or an act of revenge?

To me, it would seem that to say it was self-defense would imply that the attacks by Hezbollah on Israel will decrease in the future as a result. That is why I ask the second question, will violence from Hezbollah increase, decrease or stay the same in the near and/or distant future?

My opinion on the matter is that Hezbollah is to blame for starting the conflict, however I'm not sure whether or not Israel's response will decrease the frequency of attacks from Hezbollah. I would be curious to know what Hezbollah would have done if Israel had simply ignored the kidnappings? Would that give them more reason to attack Israel, or is the fact that Israel is fighting back give them more reason to attack Israel?

 

[JonB2004]

My question is: Is Israel's actions over the past few weeks an act of self-defense or an act of revenge?

To me, it would seem that to say it was self-defense would imply that the attacks by Hezbollah on Israel will decrease in the future as a result. That is why I ask the second question, will violence from Hezbollah increase, decrease or stay the same in the near and/or distant future?

My opinion on the matter is that Hezbollah is to blame for starting the conflict, however I'm not sure whether or not Israel's response will decrease the frequency of attacks from Hezbollah. I would be curious to know what Hezbollah would have done if Israel had simply ignored the kidnappings? Would that give them more reason to attack Israel, or is the fact that Israel is fighting back give them more reason to attack Israel?

Israel's action against Hezbollah is self-defense. And the violence will probably decrease eventually because the IDF will destroy Hezbollah.

 

[para-dice]

To portray Heabollahs attacks as revenge is not consistent with the facts.

#1. The UN reported that the IDF conducted almost daily incursions into Lebanon:

Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored "blue line" on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports. [...] In the process of its violations, Israel has terrorized the general population, destroyed private property, and killed numerous civilians. This past February, for instance, 15-year-old shepherd Yusuf Rahil was killed by unprovoked Israeli cross-border fire as he tended his flock in southern Lebanon. Israel has assassinated its enemies in the streets of Lebanese cities and continues to occupy Lebanon's Shebaa Farms area, while refusing to hand over the maps of mine fields that continue to kill and cripple civilians in southern Lebanon more than six years after the war supposedly ended. What peace did Hizbullah shatter?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/p09s02-coop.html

#2. The IDF planned this invasion more than a year ago:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MIDEAST.TMP

As such it would be more accurate to portray Hezbollah actions as retaliatory or revenge. The IDF has in the past antagonized its neighbors to start a war, notably the Six Day War:

"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.

And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'"
The New York Times, May 11, 1997

 

[ckeo]

RE: Israel's Response: Se

revenge: because self defense would dictate that they were attacked first... which is not the case.

 

[Mogz]

RE: Israel's Response: Se

Actually they were attacked first ckeo, on two account:

1. By Hamas on June 25th killing two IDF soldiers and abducting a third.

Using a tunnel more than a third of a mile long, three teams of Palestinian commandoes surprised soldiers at the outpost with mortars, machine guns and hand grenades.

Link

2. Hezbollah gunmen cross in to Israel from Lebanon on June 29th attacking an IDF patrol, killing three and abducting two.

The gunmen attacked an army patrol, killing three Israeli soldiers and abducting two more. In response, Israeli troops stormed into southern Lebanon and bombed bridges in operations that left five more Israeli soldiers dead.

Link

Your retort?

 

[BitWhys]

Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored "blue line" on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/p09s02-coop.html

 

[BitWhys]

Both sides, on occasion, have broken the “rules of the game,” though UN observer reports of the numbers of border violations find that Israel has violated the Blue Line between the countries ten times more frequently than Hizballah has.

http://www.merip.org/mero/mero073106.html

 

[BitWhys]

Persistent and provocative Israeli air incursions, occasionally reaching deep into Lebanese airspace and generating sonic booms over populated areas, remained a matter of serious concern. The pattern identified in my previous reports continued, whereby the aircraft would sometimes fly out to sea and enter Lebanese airspace north of the UNIFIL area of operation, thus avoiding direct observation and verification by UNIFIL. The air incursions violate Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity, elevate tension and disrupt the fragile calm along the Blue Line. A reduction in the number of air incursions in April contributed to an atmosphere of relative calm along the Blue Line, but this trend was reversed in May.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/fd807e46661e3689852570d00069e918/87e2508779d8ec83852571b6004c761f!OpenDocument

 

[Colpy]

I thought this was an interesting way to look at things......

From Philip Caputo's book, Means of Escape

In the Middle East, it is very difficult to maintain a balanced view of the conflict between Palestinian Arab and Israeli Jew. Each side is so passionate in its convictions, so able to persuasively argue the justice of its cause, that the neutral observer often becomes embarassed by his or her neutrality and gives in to the temptation to choose one side over the other. it makes things simpler.

Now, anyone who has read my posts knows I have chosen sides..........that is the way I'm put together, fence sitting ain't in my character. I choose Israel for a number of reasons......they are us (free and democratic), I grew up with Jewish friends, I see extremist Islamics as a threat not only to Israel but to us, I feel more comfortable with Judaism than Islam, I see Israel as on the defensive, and there is probably a hint of "chosen people' preference left over from my good ol' Baptist upbringing.

That said, I know Israel is FAR from perfect......but I wonder about the mindset of the young people here that seem to support Hamas and Hezbollah.

Neutrality I can see.

Support for folks who would stone you to death for your actions on a typical Saturday night seems to me to be a bit silly.

BTW, Caputo is a Pullitzer Prize winning journalist, a combat veteran of Vietnam who was charged with murder there. (Charges dropped, but he admits his guilt) His book about Vietnam, Rumor of War, is excellent and traces the moral and psychological degradation of a man under extreme pressure.

 

[#juan]

Colpy

That sounds an awful lot like: "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists" Things just aren't that cut and dried. There many positions between the two sides. While I loath what extremists do under so-called Sharia law, I also detest the juvenile lack of clear planning in the invasion of Iraq. Bragging about "shock and awe" bombing in what was supposed to be a liberation was military incompetence, and tactical stupidity.

I think the Israeli assault is far too heavy handed. Why is Israel doing this when it should be a multinational force? This thing will end badly, mostly, for the Lebanese.

 

[iARTthere4iam]

#juan,
The reason that Israel is not relying on a multinational force is that one never comes. In '48 numerous ceasefires broke out eventually allowing Judaism's most holy places to be cut off for the Jews, in 1956 Israel gave back the Sinai due to international demands but never got a peace deal out of it, 1967 was a total Israeli success on all fronts because Israel acted and didn't rely on anyone else. 1973 was near-destruction because Israel wasn't ready. Entebbe action showed that Israel could do amazing things on her own. Same for the bombing of the Osrik nuclear reactor provided to Iraq by
France, Italy, et al for the purpose of creating nuclear weapons. Israel has survived by military might, intelligence and audacity, it has never had success by waiting for international opinion to solve anything. These international failures are the reason why Israel continues to rely on itself, and to act agressively.
What is so hard to understand? Can't you see what history has created here?

 

[Colpy]

Colpy

That sounds an awful lot like: "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists" Things just aren't that cut and dried. .

It sure wasn't intended that way, in fact my intention was just the opposite. I used the quote to show that I understood those who maintain some sense of neutrality, and then explained what I understand to be my own bias in favour of Israel.

Guess I really ain't good at sitting on the fence........

 

[sanch]

Colpy

That sounds an awful lot like: "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists" Things just aren't that cut and dried. There many positions between the two sides. While I loath what extremists do under so-called Sharia law, I also detest the juvenile lack of clear planning in the invasion of Iraq. Bragging about "shock and awe" bombing in what was supposed to be a liberation was military incompetence, and tactical stupidity.

I think the Israeli assault is far too heavy handed. Why is Israel doing this when it should be a multinational force? This thing will end badly, mostly, for the Lebanese.

You are aware that George Senior was opposed to going on to Bagdad as well as showing too much favoritism to Israel. George W is on a new track here and I think the incompetence in Iraq is not a good omen for what will happen in Lebanon. George Senior’s people are furious with George W’s.

There is no doubt in my mind that Harper waited for his cue from George W before stating his position on Israel. At least it temporarily distracted him from his indecision on whether the flag should be at half or full mast. It’s the same phallic exercise.

 

[thomaska]

Colpy

That sounds an awful lot like: "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists" Things just aren't that cut and dried. There many positions between the two sides. While I loath what extremists do under so-called Sharia law, I also detest the juvenile lack of clear planning in the invasion of Iraq. Bragging about "shock and awe" bombing in what was supposed to be a liberation was military incompetence, and tactical stupidity.

I think the Israeli assault is far too heavy handed. Why is Israel doing this when it should be a multinational force? This thing will end badly, mostly, for the Lebanese.

Well, I'm not too sure about a multi-national force being much help, especially considering the rocket scientists at the UN will send troops from places like Malaysia and other members of the "Don't like Israel so much" fan club. I think if there were Muslim peace keepers in the "buffer zone" that Israel wants, the temptation to help fellow muslims to destroy the zionists would be too great. And it can't be American troops either because that would be just as big of a slap in the face to Hezbollah and the rest of the Islamic community. The UN should hire the Swiss or some other disinterested party to go in there.

 

[Caleb-Dain Matton]

I don't feel it is either self-defense or revenge but rather a convenient opportunity for Israel to make geo-strategic gains.

 

[#juan]

thomaska

I don't think you will find a much more dedicated chapter of the "I don't like Israel so much club" than the Hezbollah. I could see American logistics and Canadian, British, or French troops. I think we are a day late and a dollar short as they say. I can see Lebanon smashed to rat shit in another week, just like Iraq.( I cant believe Firefox's new spellchecker corrected my spelling of rat shit )

 

[JonB2004]

I don't feel it is either self-defense or revenge but rather a convenient opportunity for Israel to make geo-strategic gains.

Could you please elaborate?

 

[Caleb-Dain Matton]

I don't feel it is either self-defense or revenge but rather a convenient opportunity for Israel to make geo-strategic gains.

Could you please elaborate?

Well the 4th largest military in the world (Isreal) doesn't need self-defense -- they need to adhere to the dozens of UN Resolutions they have broken. And, I don't see it as revenge. 500 dead civilians for 2 soldiers -- only a retard would assume that this revenge is fair.

Geo-strategic gains = oil.

 

[Toro]

RE: Israel's Response: Se

Its self-defense.

Hezbollah has been waging a low-level war against Israel since Israel left Lebanon 6 years ago, which BTW, they're not supposed to be even able to do since all militias were supposed to disarm after Israel agreed to withdraw.

 

[Toro]

Geo-strategic gains = oil.

Sure is lots of oil in Lebanon and Gaza.

For the "Its all about oil" crowd, it must be enormously confusing why the US would support Israel at all when Israel's sworn enemies have all the oil.