A View From From Haaretz
From the Israeli Daily 'Haaretz':
By Ze'ev Maoz
There's practically a holy consensus right now that the war in the North is a just war and that morality is on our side. The bitter truth must be said: this holy consensus is based on short-range selective memory, an introverted worldview, and double standards.
This war is not a just war. Israel is using excessive force without distinguishing between civilian population and enemy, whose sole purpose is extortion. That is not to say that morality and justice are on Hezbollah's side. Most certainly not. But the fact that Hezbollah "started it" when it kidnapped soldiers from across an international border does not even begin to tilt the scales of justice toward our side..
Thanks to Joolz for posting it in a comment on a previous post.
"But the fact that Hezbollah
"But the fact that Hezbollah "started it" when it kidnapped soldiers from across an international border ..."
I've no idea of the truth of the matter, but you might be interested to know there are several articles reporting that the Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon.
Ron F - thanks for adding
Ron F - thanks for adding the link. That's what the Lebanese police say, the Israeli's say otherwise and the western world lines up behind the 'Official Version' of events.
I just thought it was powerfull stuff for Haaretz...
From one point of view, it's
From one point of view, it's not particularly relevant on which side of the border the Israeli troops were, is it? The main point is that the Israeli actions are way OTT, no matter what started it.
Steve G, you are right in so
Steve G,
you are right in so much as the Lebanese who are being bombed to hell and back can't be too bothered who started it, because as you say, it is completely OTT. They just want it to stop!
But, it is important in the political context, this particular piece of info [who 'started it'] underpins the US and the UK's attempts to justify our positions. I've lost track of how many times I have heard Blair remind us "how this all started"...
So in that sense, it is relevant IMHO?
Does it underpin our
Does it underpin our positions? I mean, let's say we received indubitable evidence that the Israeli soldiers were on their own side of the border when they were seized (I'm attempting to use a neutral word); would it make a great deal of difference to the rights and wrongs of what's been happening?
Seems to me that there are two separate questions; first, does Israel (or any other state) have the right to protect itself? Yes, it does in international law. Second, does the fact a state is defending itself give it carte blanche to do what what the hell it wants 'because they started it'? No, certainly not; international humanitarian law says you've got to do your best not to launch indiscrimate attacks that endanger civilians and that, when you do endanger civilians, it's got to be part of a proportionate military response to whatever the threat is.
All too often, to my mind, discussions about Israel's military responses spin off into 'who started it' (or even 'should there be a State of Israel at all?'), thus losing sight of some military tactics that are pretty dubious whoever started it.
It goes back further than
It goes back further than that. See the quote:
"The latest chapter of the conflict between Israel and Palestine began when Israeli forces abducted two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from Gaza. An incident scarcely reported anywhere, except in the
Turkish press."
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/96118