New at Reason

David Weigel | July 21, 2006

Jeff A. Taylor warns foreign policy wonks to put away the pom-poms when considering Israel's conflicts.

Comments

|7.21.06 @ 4:18AM|#

Jeff,

You sir are a traitor! Israeli and American interests are always in alignment. To imply otherwise is to deny the Holocaust. You aren't denying the Holocaust are you Jeff?

|7.21.06 @ 4:46AM|#

The Israelis don't get nearly what they deserve. Karma is a bitch. Might not happen right away, but watch out when it does.

|7.21.06 @ 5:38AM|#

Jeff,

Words, words, words, meaningless words, that's all you write.
Israel is in a serious struggle against a mortal enemy. It does what it can, maybe not what you think is best, maybe it errs, but that's war.
The US is not involved in this, it has got nothing to do with her, so staying out of it comes natural.

Your "clever" talk of American interests is meaningless.

|7.21.06 @ 5:47AM|#

Jacob,

The U.S. is involved in this if Israel's actions are detrimental or otherwise complicate our foreign policy concerns. Of course the same thing can be said about Hezbollah's actions.

|7.21.06 @ 6:08AM|#

I am thinking that our support of Israel is always against our self interest in the middle east. that doesn't mean that it is not the right thing to do.

As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I think perception of US involvement in this, could have worse consequences than the publishin of the Abu Ghraib mess.

Also: It seems to me that Syria, and maybe Iran a little are the ones that run Hezbollah, not Lebannon. If Israel were to fuck them up a little, it might help us not hurt us, being that those two countries are the major sponsors of bad guys in Iraq. I wonder why Israel didn't go after them.

|7.21.06 @ 6:16AM|#

it may give Iran something more valuable than a guerilla force in Lebanon while increasing the total population of persons motivated to do harm to do Americans and American interests.

And maybe, the fact that the US exists will be all it takes for them to recruit more terrorists.

The "you can't do that, it'll just help them recruit more terrorists" line is BS. It's an indirect excuse for saying "I'm a pacifist."

One, two, three, all together now. Just say it.

The conclusions of this entire article are based on a bunch of speculations. I suppose it will work well enough on the choir.

|7.21.06 @ 6:49AM|#

I think JAT's strongest point is regarding Turkey and the Kurds. A terrorist organization is attacking a democracy across a border. The current administration in the nation where the teroorist organization is based is not doing enough to shut down operations of said terrorist organizations. So if the Iraqi/Lebanese government won't stop the terrorists the Turks/Israelis will.

Considering Turkey is an ally and their self-defense is legit. Plus, out rhetoric about harboring terrorist. All of this puts the State Department in quite a conundrum.

|7.21.06 @ 6:51AM|#

If Israel were to fuck them up a little, it might help us not hurt us, being that those two countries are the major sponsors of bad guys in Iraq. I wonder why Israel didn't go after them.

Because Israel going after them is not in their best interest at the moment and Israel's primary concern is their own citizens' well being, not how it helps us.

I wish our politicians took the same tack with American self-interest.

Sandy|7.21.06 @ 7:04AM|#

By the hawks' argument, Israel is a coward for not taking care of the root of the problem. Since the government of Lebanon is not going after Hezbollah, despite the suicidal nature of such a confrontation, apparently "survival of your country" is not a legitimate factor when it comes to terrorism.

So the US is fully within its rights to bomb Tel Aviv in retaliation for Leon Klinghoffer, because Israel didn't do enough about the PLO. Hey, you tolerate a terrorist organization in your territory, you reap what you sow.

|7.21.06 @ 7:09AM|#

The anti-Semitic, Libertarian, Ernst Rhoem wannabes are trying to aid Hezbollah (which killed 242 of our Marines). As if the dope smoking, rightwing hippies care anything about American interests. It ridiculous for Libertarians, which have a longstanding hatred for Israel, are talking about waving pom poms for the Jewish state. Sexual perversion probably fuels Libertarian, eliminationist anti-Semitism.

Oh! 'SCUSE ME! You creatures aren't really anti-Semitic because you deny it, eh? Sexual perversion probably fuels the anti-Semitism of the so-called "party of principle."

Sandy|7.21.06 @ 7:18AM|#

Well, Steven, after you get semite and santorum on your bedsheets after some good perversion, you naturally become anti-Semitic and anti-Santorum.

|7.21.06 @ 7:37AM|#

Well, Steven, after you get semite and santorum on your bedsheets after some good perversion, you naturally become anti-Semitic and anti-Santorum.

And they call it 'Reason Magazine,' ha!

Actually, to be fair, you guys are never going to change. As I pointed out before, you guys are not getting an orgasm out of your vicious nonsense -- but frission instead (which doesn't leave a mess). The least you chaps can do is be honest and rename your rag, Frission Magazine. C'mon guys. Do it! I promise that your four subscribers won't desert you.

|7.21.06 @ 7:51AM|#

Steven,

I'm not quite sure what the sexual proclivities of libertarians (or anyone else for that matter) has to do with this.

|7.21.06 @ 8:00AM|#

I'm not quite sure what the sexual proclivities of libertarians (or anyone else for that matter) has to do with this.

Walter Block said the virtue of Libertarianism was its amazing diversity, and he, then, went on to list a whole bunch of pervert types under the Libertarian banner, bestialists, homosexuals, Libertarians for leather; etc. In this incredible description of Walter Bloch, this statement under oath by Allen Ginsberg should be kept in mind:

"this has already happened in a sense [a political party made up of homosexuals] -- or of sex perverts -- and we can point to Hitler, Germany under Hitler"



The retort of homosexual "beat" poet Allen Ginsberg when he was asked by a Justice of the Supreme court in 1966 "whether at "some time in the future there will be a political party, for instance, made up of homosexuals." (The New York Times, August 10, 1997).

|7.21.06 @ 8:05AM|#

Steven,

..went on to list a whole bunch of pervert...

You lost the argument right there. Your opinion of who is and who is not a pervert amongst consenting adults ends where my nose begins.

"this has already happened in a sense [a political party made up of homosexuals] -- or of sex perverts -- and we can point to Hitler, Germany under Hitler"

Homosexuals were persecuted under the Nazi regime; indeed, they even had a special identifier - a pink triangle. Tens of thousands of homosexuals were murdered by the Nazi regime. Now, there may have been some homosexuals who were Nazis, but your argument sounds a bit like those who claim that there were some Jews who were Bolsheviks that means that Jews should be blamed for Bolshevism.

|7.21.06 @ 8:07AM|#

Steven,

For more on the Nazi persecution of homosexuals see:

Plant, The Pink Triangle

|7.21.06 @ 8:16AM|#

Steven,

Further, I'm puzzled about something. In what way is Allen Ginsburg an expert on Nazism?

|7.21.06 @ 8:21AM|#

Speaking of America's self interest: how is it in it's interest to have a bunch of terrorists like Hizb highjack a country (Lebanon) and start havoc by attacking Israel ?
Isn't America interested in peace and quiet and a democratic and free Lebanon ? What has it done to restrain the peace disrupting, Lebanon devouring Hezbollah nuts?
(Yes, I konw, it has blacklisted them....)

|7.21.06 @ 8:22AM|#

Further, I'm puzzled about something. In what way is Allen Ginsburg an expert on Nazism?

Come off it, Mr. Lipsiensis! If I give you an expert on Nazism or a book on Nazism; e.g., The Pink Swastika, you will only ignore it or dismiss it with insults. Puhleese don't waste your time or mine.

|7.21.06 @ 8:49AM|#

Well, I'm glad the quality of discussion is so high this morning. You sure learn a lot when smart, stable folks show up to challenge your world view. I feel invigorated.

|7.21.06 @ 9:04AM|#

It's the water, Jason.

Now, I must wipe my foam-flecked lips on the sleeve of my pjs and commence my spliff-induced routine of anti- semitism, sexual depravity and political repression.

|7.21.06 @ 9:05AM|#

Steven,

If I give you an expert on Nazism or a book on Nazism; e.g., The Pink Swastika, you will only ignore it or dismiss it with insults. Puhleese don't waste your time or mine.

(A) Yes, I've read portions of the text. I find it at best unconvincing. In fact, nothing in the book undermines my point - Nazis persecuted male homosexuals. In fact, the Nazi racial laws specifically dealt with male homosexuality in a very negative manner and reversed the de facto tolerance of the Weimar republic.

(B) You're the one engaging insults here, not I.

|7.21.06 @ 9:13AM|#

I had no idea the Nazis were homosexuals. that is a learning point for me.

But does it mean anything?

And how did the whole pink triangle myth get out there?

And PL,
who gets to day what is perverted and what isn't?

Also, how did sexual preference come part of anything here? I don't get it? I didn't really understand what the poster who first talked about sex was saying. I just figured he was a troll trying to say that all libertarians, or all people who like or dislike Israel were sexual deviants, so i didn't try to understand.

|7.21.06 @ 9:16AM|#

Are we sure that "Steven" isn't merely another incarnation of "Juanita"?

|7.21.06 @ 9:23AM|#

kwais,

I had no idea the Nazis were homosexuals. that is a learning point for me.

Ernst Roehm, who was killed during the Night of the Long Knives (that is, by his fellow Nazis), was a homosexual.

But does it mean anything?

Not really.

And how did the whole pink triangle myth get out there?

Pink Triangle myth?

And PL,
who gets to day what is perverted and what isn't?

When it comes to consenting adults? The individual.

|7.21.06 @ 9:29AM|#

Thanks Jeff for an all too rare glimpse of sanity in punditry on this debate. Most people who have not already made up their minds that "Israel can do no wrong as long as their enemies are Muslims" can plainly see what is right in front of their noses: that killing hundreds in response to the killing of several is lopsided, immoral, and detrimental to everyone's interests.

Now on to some of the craziness that "rah-rah" Israel seems to bring out in people:

"The US is not involved in this, it has got nothing to do with her, so staying out of it comes natural."

Afraid the unprecedented amount of U.S. aid to Israel, much of which goes to their military, makes us 'involved' in this. I won't mention our explicit diplomatic backing in the UN and our tacit agreement to bully any nation that tries to make Israel see the light of reason when it goes off nutso like this every five years.

"The "you can't do that, it'll just help them recruit more terrorists" line is BS. It's an indirect excuse for saying "I'm a pacifist.""

Ghengis must have chosen his name for his proclivity to think like a pre-medevial savage. I can see a lot of room between thinking that supporting folks who bomb the shit out of a people will engender bad feelings towards us and pacifism. Wonder why he can't? He really thinks our mere existence makes them hate us, nothing to do with our policy? Which is why they hate China so much right? The mere existence of 'em...

"Isn't America interested in peace and quiet and a democratic and free Lebanon ?"

I think so. And we achieve this by supporting the IDF bombing the shit out of Lebanon, including areas with no ties to Hiz and who favor the West, how exactly?

Steven-you should see someone about your unhealthy obsession with pink libtertarians that have sex with animals. Did this start in childhood?

|7.21.06 @ 9:34AM|#

Also PL,
Homos can make laws against homosexuality, just like there are anti-semetic jews, and America hating Americans.

|7.21.06 @ 9:46AM|#

"When it comes to consenting adults? The individual.

I'm guessing NAMBLA would take exception to part of that, and the Christian right would take exception to the other part.

VM|7.21.06 @ 9:51AM|#

Key word - ADULTS.

and the right can sod off - it's none of their business.

|7.21.06 @ 9:55AM|#

Wow, somebody sure crapped some high-quality psychedelics in Steven's cornflakes this morning.

>Tweeet< I call one violation of Godwin's law, numerous ad hominems and unnecessary roughness. Penalties are declined; first down.

|7.21.06 @ 9:56AM|#

"Washington's oddly delayed�if not criminal�one-Mississippi, two-Mississippi, three-Mississippi effort to get American citizens out from underneath Israeli airstrikes"

WTF? That has got to be one of the dumbest statements ever uttered by a reason writer. First, it is not the U.S. government's responsibility to come and save my miserable ass from every war zone that I happen to be caught up in just because I am an American. It would be one thing if people were specifically targeting American citizens. That would be an act of war and the U.S. would have every right to respond. But the ideas the somehow the U.S. should send in the Marines immediately because a war breaks out while I am visiting uncle Abdullah in Beirut or taking my off the beaten path vacation, is just crap. This is supposed to be "libertarian" magazine, yet it never fails whether it be Katrina, Lebanon or wherever, Reason will throw personal responsibility under the bus if it helps the writer get some street creed from the Kos brigade or fits whatever mundane point they are trying to make.

|7.21.06 @ 10:09AM|#

VM,
though my sensibilities run the same as yours and PL's, what makes us right and NAMBLA and the Christian right wrong? About what is who's buisness?

|7.21.06 @ 10:11AM|#

I must say I'm surprised that so many people have been responding to Steven's frothy (mixture) rants. Don't you know that you're not supposed to feed the trolls?

|7.21.06 @ 10:16AM|#

John, two points:

1. Libertarians believe that it is the proper role of gov't to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens. Call me a hopeless Statist, but I'd have to say that evacuating citizens from a war zone fits nicely into that category.

2. Even if it does not fit into that category a-la libertopian dreams, it certainly fits in with what normal U.S. policy would be. Thus it is still an odd policy to delay an evacuation, even if it isn't strictly criminal. I believe Jeff's "What the hell's goin' on here?" stands.

|7.21.06 @ 10:17AM|#

Genghis,

The "you can't do that, it'll just help them recruit more terrorists" line is BS. It's an indirect excuse for saying "I'm a pacifist."

So you don't think that a Shi'ite kid whose parents were killed, and home destroyed, in an Israeli/US raid, would be just a bit more likely to go after his 72 virgins? Right now, though I'm definitely anti-al-Qaeda, I'm not doing them any direct harm here typing away at my keyboard. But you can bet that if they attacked and destroyed my home and family, I'd be much more motivated to personally fight against them.

I'm not saying that our military needs to be on pins and needles all the time trying not to create a single terrorist. But the regrettable fact that hostilities have broken out does not mean you throw caution to the four winds and blow up everything on the other side of the front. The indiscriminate destruction of civilian lives, homes, and infrastructure is not only monstrously immoral, but also will get in the way of these people peacefully coexisting with you in the future.

|7.21.06 @ 10:22AM|#

kwais,

It isn't a matter or right or wrong. It is a matter of tolerance based on the fact that one cannot determine what is right or wrong in such circumstances.

|7.21.06 @ 10:25AM|#

"So you don't think that a Shi'ite kid whose parents were killed, and home destroyed, in an Israeli/US raid, would be just a bit more likely to go after his 72 virgins? Right now, though I'm definitely anti-al-Qaeda,"

Let me ask you this crimethink if the U.S. or Israel or anyone else, gives in to terrorist demands and doesn't actively seek out to kill them, isn't that same kid (whose house has not been bombed) more likely to joining Al Quada because they are able to say how strong they are and how the weak their enemies are? People are not just motivated by revenge. If that were true, countries like Germany and Japan would have never been pacified. Sure there is a hard core minority who are willing to die for a loosing cause. But the majority of people no matter how angry they are about loosing their home or family member to an enemy want to be on a winning side and don't want to throw their lives away on a loosing one. The whole "if we defend ourselves, we just create more terrorists" is the opposite of the truth. The more we defend ourselves the stronger we look and the weaker and less desirable Al Quada or any enemy looks.

|7.21.06 @ 10:25AM|#

There really is only one response to Mr. Taylor's drivel. If Canada or Mexico allowed an armed group of people (let's even say they had a legitimate claim to territory in the US, say, indians, or MEXICANS!) to have rockets that they occasionally lobbed into the suburbs of Detroit or Buffalo, there would be a black spot where Canada or Mexico now exist. Israel has every right to protect its people, and has shown significant restraint over the years (at American urging) in order to "buy" peaces with concessions. In other words, the reason that Israel's interests are aligned with US interests is that they are right. That's all I need. The rest of you can pound sand. And may I suggest that you do so. There is lots of it in that area I hear.

|7.21.06 @ 10:26AM|#

Crimethink,
I think that if the kid is a Shiite kid, he is going to be raised to hate Israel regardless. And he is going to do something about it if he has the opportunity, and has little to lose.

So if the kid makes it to middle class and has a job and a family, he's probably going to say "I hate them Israelis, and I'm cheering for those that fight them, but I'll stick around and let God give them their just deserts"

So my take is that Israeli bombs make a terrorist if they destroy Lebannons economy and opportunity, much more than if they kill the kids uncle.

That is just my take.

Tim Cavanaugh|7.21.06 @ 10:27AM|#

As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I think perception of US involvement in this, could have worse consequences than the publishin of the Abu Ghraib mess.

I would say this is 100-percent accurate. Anything that has to do with Israel/Jerusalem/Palestinians, etc. will always get more blood boiling at higher temperatures than the equivalent action anywhere else in the ME. There are many reasons for this, most of them unsavory, but it's reality. That's a big mental hurdle for Americans, who take this super-rational, chamber-of-commerce view that people will always be doing what's in their own best interest and ignoring things that don't concern them. Bush's innovation in Middle East policy was to put the Israel situation aside permanently and try to demonstrate that the real foci are elsewhere in the region. It was a strong effort, but as we've seen, sooner or later you'll get dragged back to the hotbox.

VM|7.21.06 @ 10:28AM|#

Oh - sorry - NAMBLA isn't involving consenting adults. That's the one (rather large) problem. PL (Ajax Minor) pretty much covered the second.

sorry again. (need. more. coffee.)

|7.21.06 @ 10:30AM|#

"It isn't a matter or right or wrong. It is a matter of tolerance based on the fact that one cannot determine what is right or wrong in such circumstances."

I don't understand what it is you are talking about PL, is it majority rule? who's tolerance is ok?

|7.21.06 @ 10:39AM|#

kwais,

Quite obviously I am not talking about majority rule.

who's tolerance is ok?

You are going to have to flesh out question.

|7.21.06 @ 10:41AM|#

PL and VM, I am not asking these questions to be a contrarian. I read in a magazine (reason maybe?) something about where right and wrong comes from without a God. But the article lost me.

I mean, I go with right or wrong, as what feels right or wrong. But things that feel right or wrong do so because of my upbringing. And some adaptation to social values.

So if I had been born in the South a long time ago, how would I have known that slavery is wrong?

Well that is a bad example, because the golden rule applies. but maybe you get my point?

|7.21.06 @ 10:45AM|#

John,

I didn't say we should give into terrorist demands and not defend ourselves. By all means, if we have reason to believe Hezbollah is launching rockets from a site next to an apartment building, we need to neutralize that target, and if we can't avoid blowing up the apartment building, so be it. But if the target is an iffy one -- say, a normal-looking truck driving through a Beirut neighborhood -- you have to consider whether the dubious benefits of hitting it are worth the potential costs.

R C Dean|7.21.06 @ 10:49AM|#

killing hundreds in response to the killing of several is lopsided, immoral, and detrimental to everyone's interests.

This is more of the same 'proportionality' crap. Israel is entititled, and indeed obligated, to use whatever force is necessary to stop the attacks on its citizens.

Applying "proportionality" to, say, Pearl Harbor, would mean that the only appropriate American response would have been a bombing raid on a Japanese naval base, no more.

What force is reasonably necessary to stop an attack has nothing to do with proportionality.

Is the Israeli campaign in Lebanon exerting unreasonable force to stop the attacks? Dunno, but based on the evidence (Hez is still fighting), I would say no, at least not yet. Now, there may be an argument that some of the more northerly bombing runs are beyond the pale, but that depends on whether they are hitting legitimate targets, such as infrastructure being used to support Hez.

But simply prattling on about proportionality adds nothing to understanding what is, and should be, done.

|7.21.06 @ 10:53AM|#

Well that is a bad example, because the golden rule applies.

The golden rule doesn't apply if one considers the darkies to be just another kind of animal (ie, not persons).

Which is where the "we disagree, so live and let live" philosophy breaks down on some issues. If we disagree about which entities are persons to "let live", we disagree about what letting live will entail.

|7.21.06 @ 10:58AM|#

Is the Israeli campaign in Lebanon exerting unreasonable force to stop the attacks? Dunno, but based on the evidence (Hez is still fighting), I would say no, at least not yet.

What? Killing all those Marionites in Beirut didn't stop Hezbollah? Well, guess we need to kill some more...

|7.21.06 @ 10:59AM|#

ok PL (and I am more thinking out loud than writing already thought out problems)

But as an adult, I think it is wrong for me to have sex with a kid. If I had a son, I would not want a woman my age getting sexual with him.

But, back when I was a kid I wouldn't have had a problem with a woman getting sexual with me.

And that is the best scenario, and adult woman with a boy. Why is an adult man with a girl wronger? Or an adult man with a boy?

It seems wronger to me, but I don't see the logic behind it.

And of course this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, and I can't figure out what to say to Tim C because I agree with him, but I can't say that becauese his post talks about agreeing with me.

so what is the logic behind what is right and wrong sexually?

Why is Nambla and the Christian right less valid that your tolerances?

|7.21.06 @ 11:02AM|#

It's all been said before, but...

Anti-Semite!

|7.21.06 @ 11:05AM|#

"So my take is that Israeli bombs make a terrorist if they destroy Lebannons economy and opportunity, much more than if they kill the kids uncle."

To teak kwais's comment a bit, in an absolute sense there aren't going to be a lot of dead uncles as a percent of the population. The economic destruction affects everyone for a long time, so it will tend to have the effect of creating the environment in which terrorism seem tolerable.

There is a version of the 'create more terrorists' argument that I find completely unconvincing. It holds that killing terrorists counts for essentially nothing. There is an endless supply of them, and whenever you do anything to 'prod the hornet nest' you just create more terrorists.

The effect of this argument, though this interpretation is resisted by its proponents, is that you can't do anything in response. I know, I know, all you have to do is only kill the guys wearing 'terrorist' sweatshirts, so we're not really saying that you are prohibited from action. In practice, you are saying precisely that nothing can be done though. The MO of the terrorist is to make sure that any retaliation kills noncombatants. You either go after them anyway or you let them have their way with you.

|7.21.06 @ 11:05AM|#

R.C. Dean,

Applying "proportionality" to, say, Pearl Harbor, would mean that the only appropriate American response would have been a bombing raid on a Japanese naval base, no more.

Whatever, the merits of your arguments generally, this statement ignores the context of the attack - that is all the other attacks the Japanese conducted against American forces - and it also ignores the nature of the conflict itself. Pearl Harbor wasn't just a one-off attack in other words.

|7.21.06 @ 11:10AM|#

"Bush's innovation in Middle East policy was to put the Israel situation aside permanently and try to demonstrate that the real foci are elsewhere in the region."

Could you expand on this for me, Mr Cavanaugh? I'm not trying to be difficult, but it seems to me that Bush's "innovation" in the region was to tell the Israelis to "play on" no matter what.

There is infinite blame to be allocated in the region, and the Palestinian civil administration bears an enormous burden of guilt for not providing a stable social, political and economic environment for their citizens. However, the Israelis have also carried out an ongoing program of destabilization which I believe to have been been terribly counterproductive in the long run. My admittedly naive view of the world is that the overwhelming majority of people in the world just want to be left alone to raise their families and live their lives; an unstable, impoverished "Palestine" composed of occupied territories where very nearly the entire populace is unemployed and dependent on state or freelance (including Hezbollah, Saddam Hussein, and Hamas) charity is not a place where that can happen.

|7.21.06 @ 11:19AM|#

Killing all those Marionites

Funny, I thought Marion was here in Ohio.

Maronites, now, I know who they are.

|7.21.06 @ 11:19AM|#

kwais,

Far be it from me to speak for PhiLip, but I would say that the difference is that the right's difficulties with consensual sex involve matters that do not demonstrably harm anyone, and so should not be subject to legal action. As far as NAMBLA goes, humans below a certain age are not capable of making rational life-altering decisions even for themselves.

Really, the philosophy of govt intervention only when demonstrable harm is being done to a person is extremely flexible and useful for allowing people of vastly different moral philosophies (like PhilLip and me) to agree on a system of law. It runs aground only on a few issues.

|7.21.06 @ 11:20AM|#

Killing all those Marionites

Funny, I thought Marion was here in Ohio.

Maronites, now, I know who they are.

|7.21.06 @ 11:24AM|#

DROP THE BOMB!
EXTERMINATE THEM ALL!

|7.21.06 @ 12:53PM|#

Again, how to explain the poor quality of the arguments for Israel's action other than the fact that dogmatists make them? They are not really arguments as much as apologies. I challenge those in favor of the IDF's actions to generate a GENERAL principle that could be neutrally applied to justify such immoral slaughter instead of the usual "Hmm, we like Israel and need to justify their current actions, but in a way that we would resist if applied to any other situation (especially one in which Israel is on a different end!)."

Again, more lame arguments need to be exposed:
"Israel is entititled, and indeed obligated, to use whatever force is necessary to stop the attacks on its citizens."
Of course this is stupid. A general principle of "any country is entitled to use WHATEVER force necessary to stop attacks on its citizens" sounds appealing but fails to address the moral question at issue: at what point does counteractive force become immoral (there has to be some limit, right? In response to 9/11 we would not be justified in nuking every Islamic nation would we? I mean it would "stop attacks on our citizens.")

"If Canada or Mexico allowed an armed group of people (let's even say they had a legitimate claim to territory in the US, say, indians, or MEXICANS!) to have rockets that they occasionally lobbed into the suburbs of Detroit or Buffalo, there would be a black spot where Canada or Mexico now exist."

First, did the Lebanese not involved with Hiz "allow" Hiz to have rockets and attack Israel? Did they have much choice (would a civil war have been good enough for ya, they tried that a couple of times)? I for one would not bomb Toronto if some Quebec seperatist bombed Rochester. It's immoral and stupid to hit the innocent. Do you not accept any distinction between actually guilty people and innocent, or combatants and non-combatants (in fact, the refusal to make that distinction is why we are to find the terrorist groups immoral, right?).

"Is the Israeli campaign in Lebanon exerting unreasonable force to stop the attacks? Dunno, but based on the evidence (Hez is still fighting), I would say no, at least not yet."

So as long as Hiz fights back against Israel's bombings and shellings it is proof that Israel is correct in the amount of force they use? So if they ratchet that force up a few notches, and those crazy guys keep shooting back, that proves...what?

"The whole "if we defend ourselves, we just create more terrorists" is the opposite of the truth. The more we defend ourselves the stronger we look and the weaker and less desirable Al Quada or any enemy looks."

Brilliant theory. How's that working out in Iraq?

|7.21.06 @ 1:40PM|#

Ken,

Well said.

|7.21.06 @ 2:25PM|#

the reason that Israel's interests are aligned with US interests is that they are right

Assuming that they are right (no shades of grey - everything in glorious b/w), I will still (mis)quote the Dude:

"You're not wrong, Israel. You're just an asshole!"

|7.21.06 @ 2:25PM|#

Ken,

"Of course this is stupid. A general principle of "any country is entitled to use WHATEVER force necessary to stop attacks on its citizens" sounds appealing but fails to address the moral question at issue: at what point does counteractive force become immoral (there has to be some limit, right? In response to 9/11 we would not be justified in nuking every Islamic nation would we? I mean it would "stop attacks on our citizens.")"


That is pure sophestry. The United States would not have been justified in nukeing every Arab country after 9-11 because those countries were not responsible for 9-11. It has been settled principle of international law that every country has the duty to control armed groups within its borders. Lebenon has a duty to prevent Hezbollah from attacking Israel. If Lebenon is unwilling or unable to stop Hezbollah, then Hezbollah's attacks amount to a Lebonese attack on Israel and Israel has a right to resond with whatever force is necesseary to stop those attacks, including violations of Lebenon's sovereignty. Like many people, you completely misunderstand the notional proportionality. Proportionality does not mean, if you bring a knife, I can't fire back with a gun. Israel has a right under the laws of war to kill as many combatants as it chooses and is able. Just because Hamas fired 5 missles does not mean that Israel can only fire 5 missles back. Israel can respond to one missle with its entire air force and it would still be legal. Proportionality only comes to bear when non-combantants are killed. Even then, the death of a non-combatant does not make the strike illegal. It is only illegal when the military value of the strike does not outweigh the harm done to civilians. In short, while Israel cannot indriscriminately kill civilians, it can kill as many Hezbollah as it can and there is no such thing as "non proporitional" response.

"First, did the Lebanese not involved with Hiz "allow" Hiz to have rockets and attack Israel? Did they have much choice (would a civil war have been good enough for ya, they tried that a couple of times)? I for one would not bomb Toronto if some Quebec seperatist bombed Rochester. It's immoral and stupid to hit the innocent. Do you not accept any distinction between actually guilty people and innocent, or combatants and non-combatants (in fact, the refusal to make that distinction is why we are to find the terrorist groups immoral, right?)."

Just becuase Lebenon cannot control Hezbolloh does not mean that Israelis have to die and do nothing. If Lebenon cannot stoip Hezbolloh from attacking Israel, Isreal has the right to do defend itself. As I explained above, the mere death of an innocent person does not make an act of war unlawful.

"So as long as Hiz fights back against Israel's bombings and shellings it is proof that Israel is correct in the amount of force they use? So if they ratchet that force up a few notches, and those crazy guys keep shooting back, that proves...what?"

Again, see above. You don't understand proprotionality. Israel is at war with Hezbolloh. Israel can kill as many as they see fit in whatever way they want to as long as the military value of each individual strike outweighs the harm done to civilians. The fact that Hezbollow is shooting back just means that Israel is still acting in self defense and can lawfully attack.

"The whole "if we defend ourselves, we just create more terrorists" is the opposite of the truth. The more we defend ourselves the stronger we look and the weaker and less desirable Al Quada or any enemy looks."

Brilliant theory. How's that working out in Iraq?"

Ken if you want to choose to die for your principles, more power to you. Some of us, apparently including the Israelis, do not plan to do that. Isreal has an absolute right to attack Lebenon under international law and has a duty to defend its citizens from attack.

|7.21.06 @ 2:30PM|#

the reason that Israel's interests are aligned with US interests is that they are right

Assuming that they are right (no shades of grey - everything in glorious b/w), I will still (mis)quote the Dude:

"You're not wrong, Israel. You're just an asshole!"

|7.21.06 @ 2:31PM|#

the reason that Israel's interests are aligned with US interests is that they are right

Assuming that they are right (no shades of grey - everything in glorious b/w), I will still (mis)quote the Dude:

"You're not wrong, Israel. You're just an asshole!"

|7.21.06 @ 2:34PM|#

Ken,

"Of course this is stupid. A general principle of "any country is entitled to use WHATEVER force necessary to stop attacks on its citizens" sounds appealing but fails to address the moral question at issue: at what point does counteractive force become immoral (there has to be some limit, right? In response to 9/11 we would not be justified in nuking every Islamic nation would we? I mean it would "stop attacks on our citizens.")"


That is pure sophistry. The United States would not have been justified in nuking every Arab country after 9-11 because those countries were not responsible for 9-11. It has been settled principle of international law that every country has the duty to control armed groups within its borders. Lebanon has a duty to prevent Hezbollah from attacking Israel. If Lebanon is unwilling or unable to stop Hezbollah, then Hezbollah's attacks amount to a Lebanese attack on Israel and Israel has a right to respond with whatever force is necessary to stop those attacks, including violations of Lebanon�s sovereignty. Like many people, you completely misunderstand the notional proportionality. Proportionality does not mean, if you bring a knife, I can't fire back with a gun. Israel has a right under the laws of war to kill as many combatants as it chooses and is able. Just because Hamas fired 5 missiles does not mean that Israel can only fire 5 missiles back. Israel can respond to one missile with its entire air force and it would still be legal. Proportionality only comes to bear when non-combatants are killed. Even then, the death of a non-combatant does not make the strike illegal. It is only illegal when the military value of the strike does not outweigh the harm done to civilians. In short, while Israel cannot indiscriminately kill civilians, it can kill as many Hezbollah as it can and there is no such thing as "non proportional" response.

"First, did the Lebanese not involved with Hiz "allow" Hiz to have rockets and attack Israel? Did they have much choice (would a civil war have been good enough for ya, they tried that a couple of times)? I for one would not bomb Toronto if some Quebec separatist bombed Rochester. It's immoral and stupid to hit the innocent. Do you not accept any distinction between actually guilty people and innocent, or combatants and non-combatants (in fact, the refusal to make that distinction is why we are to find the terrorist groups immoral, right?)."

Just because Lebanon cannot control Hezbollah does not mean that Israelis have to die and do nothing. If Lebanon cannot stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel, Israel has the right to do defend itself. As I explained above, the mere death of an innocent person does not make an act of war unlawful.

"So as long as Hiz fights back against Israel's bombings and shelling it is proof that Israel is correct in the amount of force they use? So if they ratchet that force up a few notches, and those crazy guys keep shooting back, that proves...what?"

Again, see above. You don't understand proportionality. Israel is at war with Hezbollah. Israel can kill as many as they see fit in whatever way they want to as long as the military value of each individual strike outweighs the harm done to civilians. The fact that Hezbollah is shooting back just means that Israel is still acting in self defense and can lawfully attack.

"The whole "if we defend ourselves, we just create more terrorists" is the opposite of the truth. The more we defend ourselves the stronger we look and the weaker and less desirable Al Quada or any enemy looks."

Brilliant theory. How's that working out in Iraq?"

Ken if you want to choose to die for your principles, more power to you. Some of us, apparently including the Israelis, do not plan to do that. Israel has an absolute right to attack Lebanon under international law and has a duty to defend its citizens from attack.

|7.21.06 @ 2:58PM|#

Damn server!
There! I feel like I have joined the club.
Now should I start talking about HFCS?

|7.22.06 @ 2:54AM|#

I'm fascinated by many of the pro-"disproportionate response" arguments presented here. If I understand them correctly, the US would have been justified in the 1980's, after finding out that Israel stole top-secret military information via Jonathan Pollard and sold it to our greatest enemy in return for emigration favors for Soviet Jews, to flatten every town and city in Israel.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about Israel, and Israel's actions over the past 25 years clearly indicate that they don't give a rat's ass about us, other than as a source of funds and weaponry. I don't think anyone's "right" in the Middle East - everyone there has committed far too many dubious acts and atrocities to claim that. I do care about the best interests of the US, which may or may not coincide with Israel's best interests.

|7.22.06 @ 3:24PM|#

Unfortunately, recognizing that Israel's interests don't necessarily coincide with U.S. interests leads some dimwitted conspiracy "theorists" to assume that American support for Israel is not the result of bad Alerican policy, but of evil manipulation by clever Israelis (read Jews).