Wednesday, August 02, 2006



New Fisk

A Nato-led force would be in Israel's interests, but not Lebanon's

Posted by Idiot/Savant at 8/02/2006 02:37:00 AM

Labels:

7 comments:

It's a clever trick, wringing ones' hands at the same time as sitting on them. The alternatives look somewhat bleaker.

Serbia and Kosovo are examples of where a UN mandated forced has brought peace to an otherwise intractable conflict.

 Posted by Anonymous : 8/02/2006 08:05:00 AM

SLightly OT:

Imagine for a moment that Gibson said: "Fucking Americans... The Americans are responsible for all the wars in the world. Are you an American?"

Yeah, I know. Big Whoop. Tell me something I don't know, right?

The usual rule in all setups is that you say pretty much anything you like, except criticise the real seatof power.

 Posted by Anonymous : 8/02/2006 08:26:00 AM

Neil,
Up to your stunningly selective views of history and of conflict again I see..
Perhaps you could explain to us why Hezbollah should be bound by the UN resolution whereas Israel have been left free to ignore the many UN resolutions issued against them?

"No, it was there to stop Melosevic. There was no moral equivalence between the sides." Perhaps you could also explain the distinctions between Milosovic's actions against innocents and that of the national security force of Israel persuing collective punishment against the civilian population of Lebanon: a country they are not at war with?

and finally "The essential problen is the continued existance of an illegal millitia in southern Lebanon. Southern Lebanon is where the problem is not northern Israel."
Since your myopic view places fault in one place only, and rationalises all contra actions from that point, perhaps you could also explain whether if the UK has reduced Dublin airport and large parts of civilian Ireland to rubble in pursuit of the IRA, that would've been legitimate?

 Posted by Anonymous : 8/02/2006 11:30:00 AM

Neil - "A ceasefire that does not deal with the underlying issue will just mean more fighting in the future and an even more hawkish Israeli public."

Well .. yes absolutly correct. but we should also add "and an even more millitant hezbollah." to your statement.

The world seems to be quite capable of declaring that hezbollah should stop. Why cant we demand the same of israel? Oh thats right, because someone keeps vetoing security council resolutions and keeps selling arms to israel.

Hizbollah shouldnt be firing rockets into israel, but israel has no morall ground to stand upon due to its bloody and brutal behaviour. Snipering little kids in the head is a pretty good example.

Both sides need to pull their heads in.
Also i find it a little sick that people on both sides are trying to defend/justify a conflict where by far the main casualty has been children

fraser

 Posted by Anonymous : 8/02/2006 05:27:00 PM

> The world seems to be quite capable of declaring that hezbollah should stop. Why cant we demand the same of israel?

Note how you used "declaring" in the first part and "demand" in the second.

Lots of people have "declared" that israel should stop just no one has the balls to force them or Hezbollah to do it.

> Oh thats right, because someone keeps vetoing security council resolutions

What would the SC do about it anyway?
What is the SC doing about Hezbollah?

 Posted by Genius : 8/02/2006 06:38:00 PM

I was trying to draw out the response '...but we should also add "and an even more hawkish Lebanese public."'.

I don't see any moral equivalence between Israel and Hezbollah.

But the thrust of my argument is to do with what the responsibilities are of the international community. We have had a lot of talk recently, over Iraq, about how conflicts should be solved via the UN and the importance of mulilateral solutions and international law, etc.

Now if that is all well intentioned then shouldn't we be thinking through this a bit more thoroughly? Should the international community be making promises about, for example, land for peace that it cannot keep? If we are concerned for Israel's actions, do we have an obligation to work thru the UN deal with the leginate security concerns of Israel?

 Posted by Anonymous : 8/02/2006 06:43:00 PM

declare/demand, so i used a different word, fair enough to draw a conclusion based on that, but it was unintentional. I meant the same thing

genius - "Lots of people have "declared" that israel should stop just no one has the balls to force them or Hezbollah to do it."

So i expect to see you signing up and shipping out? - just kidding.

neil - "I don't see any moral equivalence between Israel and Hezbollah."

Why not? Theyre both groups that use terror as a weapon. Just because one is a state makes no difference. Do you see a moral difference between firing rockets into cities and snipering kids in the head?

I dont.

fraser

 Posted by Anonymous : 8/03/2006 09:37:00 AM

Post a Comment

(Anonymous comments are enabled).