Magued said:
Intresting points!
I see that you have read up, and it was a new point of view regarding the Jews in 1948 for me.
I cant however understand israels intentions regarding Lebanon. They have over 1000 Lebanese men in prison without trial. And by bombing the infrastructure of the intire land, how will that help them stopping Hizbollah?
Isnt that just going to breed more hate, and more future enemys?
You have to ask yourself, do they want to make sure Lebanon doesnt develop?
Look at the democratic movements that have been outing the syrians and made Lebanon on its way to a real rich and democratic country. What do you think is israels intention with destroying bridges, powerplants, watersupplies etc etc?
Magued
Mag,
I do a lot of reading on things such as these, and other modern history subjects. Makes it easier to understand why the world is the way it is. You should see my collection of books, it's enough to make most people depressed...
When I said I understand why Israel is doing what it's doing right now in Lebanon, I did not mean that I condone their actions, just that I understand their reasoning. If I understand somebody's reasoning, it only means I can see where they are coming from, but not that I automatically agree with them.
Israel have always held an aggressive stance towards any thread, perceived or real. I have to say that I was quite suprised when Israel gave up their safety zone in southern Lebanon a few years ago.
I think most Israelis, including the government, were pleased with the democratic movement that existed in Lebanon, but that they kept an eye open to see which way this movement would go. I don't think they would have accepted a Hezbollah inspired government in Lebanon for example (I don't think Lebanon would ever get that, the population is too diverse, consisting of several types of Muslims, Christians, and other smaller factions). I think Israel's recent aggressive behavior in the Gaza strip has everything to do with Hamas winning the elections there. So Israel is happy with democratic neighbours, as long as they vote somewhat moderate (which is terrifyingly similar to US policy).
The reason Israel is attacking the entire infrastructure is brutally simple from a pure military point of view: You destroy your enemy's ability to move troops and equipment, and they can't send reinforcements to the areas you plan to attack, nor can they flee once you have them on their knees. It is similar to what the Allies did before and during the Normandy invasion of 1944.
Unfortunately, what makes sense from a military point of view is often terrible from a humanitarian point of view. After all, aid goods and other forms of help can not be moved into the areas for the same reasons. If an ambulance can not cross a river or ravine because the bridge has been destroyed, neither can a rocket firing truck (like the ones used to target northern Israel). And that is the simple, brutal reason it's being done. Israel's policy at the moment seems to be "if somebody is going to get bombed, it damn well ain't going to be us!".
The same brutal reasoning can be applied to installations like powerplants and water supplies. They take away the enemy's ability to fight. Soldiers that have no water, fight a lot less fiercely for instance. When the US started fighting Iraq (both in 1991 and 2003) their first targets were such things as power stations and water plants. They are, unfortunately, legitimate military targets, even according to the Geneva conventions (not that the US or Israel have shown much regard to these in recent years).
However, it can be reasoned that the bombing campaign of Israel is too severe (even if you do agree with Israel). After all, they can quite easily cut off the southern part of Lebanon and fight their enemies there. But by striking throughout the country they demonstrate that their enemies are safe nowhere. Likewise, the indiscriminate use of force in southern Lebanon (i.e. the bombing of Qana) is most likely brought about by a philosophy that reasons that the people (the Lebanese) that have given shelter to our enemies (Hezbollah) are my enemy as well. It is a very simplistic outlook, but has been Israel's stance since it's birth in 1948.
Like I said, I understand the reasoning Israel uses, but if you were too ask me if I agree....no. Without trying to sound too biblical, I think violence only begets violence. Also, the bombing of civilians, or an excessive use of force never brought a country or a people to it's knees. History teaches us this.
When the UK was bombed during during the Blitz of 1940/1941, the civilian casualties only stiffened the British resolve.
Likewise, the massive Allied bombing raids on German cities, particularly murderous ones like the raid on Dresden in 1945, only made the Germans more determined not to surrender.
The Russian maltreatment of the German peoples they conquered during 1944 and 1945 also made the Germans more determined to fight or die.
The Dutch have been under Spanish rule from 1568 until 1648. The Spanish were brutal. Did we roll over and play dead? No, we fought them for 80 years. And we won. And became one of the riches, most powerful seagoing nations of the world.
The same goes for all the nations conquered during WW2. All these countries, though their armies were defeated, kept fighting by means of underground or partizan movements.
If brutality worked in breaking the will to be free, there would still be black slaves in the US, apartheid in South Africa, communism in Europe, I'd be speaking German, and we not be confronted daily with images of young Palestinian men throwing rocks at the Israeli forces. They would have given up long ago. Just think of David and Goliath. Seems very appropriate somehow, since, like David, the Palestinians are often just armed with a rock, where the big, Israeli tanks like the Merkava and Magach can be likened to Goliath.
