An informative backgrounder by Lara Deeb on precisely who Hezbollah are and whether they are indeed the aggressors in the conflict with Israel can be read here: http://www.merip.org/mero/mero073106.html

Note that the UN has recorded Israel as violating the Blue Line ten times as often as Hezbollah operatives since Israel’s withdrawal in 2000, which problematises the suggestion that Israel is responding to a deliberate escalation on the part of Hezbollah.

Tim writes:

“I don’t think you can judge a military operation by looking just at the ratio of innocent civilians killed on either side, let alone make a judgement on what is or is not an inappropriate ratio. I am more interested in whether Israel, by its current actions, is reducing or eliminating the threat to its own people posed by Hezbollah. And I believe the answer to this is “Yes”. Therefore, the second question is could Israel achieve this using other means which would not result in the numbers of civilian deaths we are currently seeing. Given Hezbollah’s methods of operation, I believe the answer to this is “No”. This is the basis of my support for the current Isreali actions.”

The first part of this argument is facile. The reason International Humanitarian Law was introduced is precisely to minimise the effects on civlians of international conflict. Tim’s lack of interest in this issue only echoes the disinterest of the Israeli generals and ministers responsible for the ordering such war crimes. The second part of this argument is also bogus. An independent report by Human Rights Watch explicitly contradicts the argument that ‘Hezobllah’s methods of opeation’ are responsible for the level of Lebanese civilian deaths. According to HRW, Israel’s attacks on civilians in Lebanon are “indiscriminate”. As HRW writes: “In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians.” (See: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/02/lebano13902.htm)

It is worth considering, I believe, what the US and UK’s endorsement of these attacks (through political lobbying, the provision of and transportation of military hardware etc.) is having on the view of the West in the Middle East. It certainly doesn’t endear people here to politicians there.

Finally, and on the issue of Israeli security (which Tim appears to believe should be of greater concern than the security of Lebanese, Palestinians, and others), we should note the following: Israel has five fronts: Egypt, Jordan, ‘Palestine’, Lebanon and Syria. Two of those fronts are quiet because Israel made peace agreements with the states involved. The others are not. Isn’t it about time that Israel reconsiders its rejection of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, which promised full peace for full withdrawal from occupied Palestinian and other Arab territory? (See: http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm)

We ourselves are sort of in the grip of a war-mongering megalomaniac with no regard for the will of the people who elected him - perhaps someone should bomb OUR homes, transport links and children, not because they hate US, heaven forbid, but because they hate Tony? That’d be both ethically sound AND constructive, wouldn’t it?

We discussed this before. If Hezbollah were elected by the Lebanese, who then enact the will of the Lebanese people by mandate, then that would mean that it is indeed Lebanon, and not just Hezbollah, that the Israel is at war with.

However, since it is an armed militia, I worry at just how democratic Hezbollah’s political power actually is.

I do think it’s a little disingenuous to say that it’s Hezbollah that Israel is in the process of obliterating and not Lebanon, since the civilians, including many innocent children, and the country’s infrastructre are also being obliterated. How can you say that Lebanon is not being obliterated in such a situation? What is Lebanon, if it is not the people and the infrastructure? If you destroy those, you destroy Lebanon.

Also, at the risk of being terribly ignorant, I thought that Hezbollah were included in the democratically elected government of Lebanon - whether they are a true reflection of the people’s wishes or not, don’t they act with that mandate?

Also, while destroying Hezbollah’s ability to carry out attacks on Israel might reduce the immediate threat from Hezbollah attacks, can you not see the likely effect of this in the long term? Do you think it is winning friends for Israel? I do not. In fact, I think it makes Israel look like a terrible bully. If someone pinches you, you do not chop off their hands so they can never do it again. Unless you are terribly grandiose, violent, paranoid or immature. At the most, you might pinch them back, but you ask them why they did it, and you respect and try to understand their position, especially if you do not condone violence, and do not want to receive any more.

To say that the threat comes from Hezbollah, and leave it at that is also not terribly informative or constructive - it is a conveniently limited analysis of the situation - why is there a threat from Hezbollah? Have you thought about that? Even crazy or unreasonable people have logical motives behind their actions, which can be uncovered by careful analysis. Israel is looking pretty crazy and unreasonable (and nasty) to me at the moment, but I can still respect the fact that their feelings and motives are worth considering a) out of basic human respect and b) if the violence is to stop. If Israel expects this degree of understanding, then surely it must afford the same to others?

He didn’t specify that the obliterated one should be Lebanon because he was not for one second suggesting this. This is a war between Israel and Hezbollah with Lebanon being the battleground. The one side I am hoping is obliterated is Hezbollah, not Lebanon.

Israel is increasing the threat to itself and its people by its actions; it conveniently does not want to address the question of where the threat comes from in the first place.

I don’t believe Israel is increasing the threat to itself, because it is destroying the ability of Hezbollah to carry out attacks on Israel. And it is addressing the question of where the threat comes from: it comes from Hezbollah based in Lebanon, hence they are attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon.

I am not going to address your other two points, as I believe your reading of Israel’s history to be diametrically opposite to mine; we’re going to have to leave it at that.

I’m afraid I disagree with you on both counts:

- Israel is increasing the threat to itself and its people by its actions; it conveniently does not want to address the question of where the threat comes from in the first place.

- Israel could perfectly well reduce the threat to itself and its people by non-violent means. But I doubt it ever would, because it seems to enjoy trying to violently dominate its neighbours, and it seems to think it has a right to their land, without respecting the fact that its neighbours have the right to feel just the same. Bullies are always going to be running scared.

And I’ve just got to point out that your characterisation of Lebanon’s actions is quite inaccurate. They did not attack a neighbour who hadn’t attacked them. Israel has been bullying its neighbours for years. If anyone should be obliterated, it should be Israel, though I personally don’t think obliterating anyone is ever justifiable or constructive or ethical.

Yes, I know. But he was wrong. It was a total and humiliating submission for the Germans, directly related, I understand, to the later rise of the Nazis and the second world war.

Second, I don’t think Tim is ashamed of taking sides in this conflict

No, it would seem not, but he should be. Taking sides like that is the one sure way to perpetuate the deaths of innocent civilians, and how can that be morally right?

What he actually said was that there shouldn’t be a ceasefire, both sides should be allowed to continue fighting until one is obliterated, because this would bring lasting peace to the region. He didn’t specify that the obliterated one should be Lebanon, presumably because he couldn’t justify such a specification. So then if his aim is lasting peace, and obliterating Israel would achieve the job just as well, then presumably that would be equally acceptable to him as obliterating Lebanon. If not, then I’m afraid there is an inconsistency.

Anyway, to address Clarice’s other questions (I’ll ignore the fuckwit who refers to Condi Rice as “Uncle Tom”):

Unless maybe you think killing innocent civilians in a terribly inappropriate ratio makes one “good”?

I don’t think you can judge a military operation by looking just at the ratio of innocent civilians killed on either side, let alone make a judgement on what is or is not an inappropriate ratio. I am more interested in whether Israel, by its current actions, is reducing or eliminating the threat to its own people posed by Hezbollah. And I believe the answer to this is “Yes”. Therefore, the second question is could Israel achieve this using other means which would not result in the numbers of civilian deaths we are currently seeing. Given Hezbollah’s methods of operation, I believe the answer to this is “No”. This is the basis of my support for the current Isreali actions.

Tim, would you continue to hold your view that obliteration of one side is a good thing if it looked like Israel would be the one to be obliterated?

Under present circumstances, no. But if the Israeli army deliberately and repeatedly attacked a neighbour who had hitherto not attacked them, then the Israeli army suffering a major defeat would be a good thing IMO. If the Israeli army was carrying out these attacks without the sanction of the Israeli government, I would say the obliteration of the Israeli army would be essential.

You mean the Treaty of Versailles?

Erm, I think you need to read my post again.

Second, I don’t think Tim is ashamed of taking sides in this conflict, so I’m not sure how pertinent your latter question is for him. I have a problem with his stance, simply because it does take us into the realm a war ‘proper’, where strategies and tactics are made in the strict Machiavellian sense of what is most effective and most expedient. The decision that you are moral, and the other side is not, has already been made. So ethically those tactics would be valid.

I agree that the issues are not so clear-cut with regards to Israel, so I would not so readily take sides, and the forces employed or the ceasefire agreed upon are still open issues. But I’m not seeing an inconsistency in Tim’s argument - I just think we start from entirely different premises!