Justus For All

I think you are correct that attacking soldiers in their own country is an act of war. I understand that Israel is trying to defend itself, but there needs to be some form of moderation to stop this from blowing up into a major regional conflict, and now once again Iran is showing itself as major sticking point.

The timing on this and North Korea’s launch seem to close for my tastes. Why would Hizbollah decide that now is the time to attack? And why would they let Iran use them as a pawn in their international nuke game if they are taking orders from Iran.

While i think that Isreal is in the right here and that they rest of the world should condem the actions of other state actors, I also think that Isreal is being played a fool.

Hizbollah wanted them to attach for some reason, they choose the timing of the attack right after Isreal lost another soldier, why is all I want to know.

I think this is definitely a little deeper than two random acts. Israel is being sucked into somethng, but I think they are prepared for the consequences. I think the antagonists here will find themselves in a bad place.

Dave: in the beggining of your post you state: “I am not sure that attacks against Beirut are either warranted or wise. It is my impression that the Lebanon Government, still struggling to form a cohesive identity since the Cedar Revolution, truely doesn’t have any control over Hizbollah or the southern Lebanese territory where the attacks were launched from.” You go on to write quite a well-grounded post but the first paragraph surpized me, to be honest.

After all, they hit us, so what should we do? Sit back and wait for the next hit to come? That’s like the U.S. giving military aid to Al-Qaeda following 9/11. Ask some Israelis here whether they think we should spare the poor ol’ (young) Lebanese gov? We’re sitting in bunkers(at least most Northern communities are) and you call on restraint???

Greg,

I am not saying that Israel should not have responded, but if it had confined its attacks to Southern Lebanon and Hezbollah and not attacked the Beirut Airport (for instance) it might have been more effective at exploiting the schism between Lebanese Nationalists and Hezbollah. As it is, their is a threat that both will unify creating more support for Hezbollah in Lebanon rather than less.

There seems to me to be both great dangers and some positive opportunities in the current conflict. Swift leadership, probably by the United States working with Israel and some of the Arab states could make this a very costly mistake for Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. That opportunity will be difficult to grasp though and not without peril.

There are certainly indications that this was planned by Iran, and it that sense it is a ‘trap’ but I agree with Sandcastle that this trap could be turned against those who set it.

Dave: Israel attacked the Beirut airport for a reason: so that Iranian and Syrian military aid(and neither Syria nor Iran will send medical supplies or food stuffs mind you) wouldn’t be able to land. It’s as simple as that. Besides, there’s a double standard here. When the U.S. is at war it goes all out taking no prisoners. But when we go to war the U.S. expects us to show restraint.

Greg, the Bush Administration SAYS to use restraint. Whether they expect Israel to or not is likely not something we can readily discern, diplomacy being like attorney-client privilege sometimes.

I would just say, “don’t do anything I wouldn’t do”, which isn’t a very restrictive set of conditions….

Clearly, there is a double standard at work, as you observe, but it applies to the U.S. as well as to Israel. The U.S. can’t exactly go “all out” either, dude. Our Supreme Court just made it more difficult to detain prisoners, however, so we may indeed be seeing more “take no prisoners”.

Please redirect your fire towards hostile entities. Friends of Israel in the U.S. can take your comments here & on your blog as a little too cynical.

Greg,

I understand why Israel attacked the airport, and also the Lebanese Army outposts. What I question is if this is the best way to achieve their goals.

There are things about the conflict we don’t know. What diplomatic exchanges were made between Lebanon and Israel, exactly what intelligence Israel has, and other things of that nature. If we knew that, perhaps my criticisms would be unwarranted. These ‘unknowns’ are why I said I was unsure in my original post.

At the moment though we have nothing to indicate that Israel made overtures to the legitimate Lebanese Government and was refused or that extraordinary activity at the Airport required a bombing at this stage.

I also think you are vastly mistaken in saying that I, or the U.S. in general, is engaging in a double standard here. When we wanted to attack Afghanistan after 9-11 we didn’t bomb the Northern Alliance, we worked with them. When we invaded Iraq we didn’t kill everyone we could or bomb Mosques because we wanted to ally with ordinary Iraqis.

Attacking people who could be your allies is just stupid.

K.Pablo: you’re probably right and I was wrong to place too much blame on America, though you’ll hear from me again on the Pollard issue.

“I would just say, “don’t do anything I wouldn’t do”, which isn’t a very restrictive set of conditions….”

Pablo, I agree. In fact I would call it “carte blanche” rather than ‘not very restrictive’.

Ah, but isn’t “carte blanche” just what Israel is taking?