“I am not understanding something” - CORRECT!!!!!

“I resent somewhat that you claim that I am unwilling to listen when primarily I have been trying to understand where you come from and how and why you make your judgements” - FAIR COMMENT!!
__________________________________________________

I am not persuaded at all that EVERY OR ANY action by the Israeli government is “moral”.

I am far from persuaded that EVERY action by the Islamic side is moral.

I BELIEVE THAT IN MAKING THAT JUDGEMENT OF “MORALITY”, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE EVENTS IN ISOLATION.

Certainly I do not accept without question the morality of the Israeli actions.

Sadly, I am having difficulty here and your last post confused me even further.

You seem to be saying that all invasions are morally wrong. That the Allied invasions of WWII were not wrong. That the German and Japanese invasions of WWII would not have been wrong if the Axis powers had won. Then you say that invasions must be judged on moral reletivity rather than absolutes. You give no criteria on how to judge this morality (except perhaps winning makes it moral)

The statements above are not all internally consistant. Therefore either you are insane, or I am not understanding something.

Certainly I have my own views on the morality of Israels invasion of Lebanon. I freely admit that your arguments are unlikely to change my mind. Regardless of that though, I would like to understand what others think and why they think that, and even if I disagree with them. Further, while it is true that I probably won’t change my mind, that doesn’t mean that I won’t listen to other arguements or that it is impossible to convince me to change my mind.

I resent somewhat that you claim that I am unwilling to listen when primarily I have been trying to understand where you come from and how and why you make your judgements. I also don’t think it fair for you to imply that the difference between us is that I am unwilling to change my views while you are willing to change yours, when you have given no evidence of changing your views.

Neither at any time did I say that the invasion of France by Germany in 1940 was “right”, or moral, or anything like it. For some unknown reason you seem to delight putting words in my mouth.

As simply as I can -

1. As a moral absolute, all invasions are wrong.

2. If the Allies had not succeeded in overcoming the Axis powers, Europe would now (in all probability) be praising the German foresight and morality of ridding the continent of the perils of communism and the Jews and Hitler would be a saint, and I would probably be starting the day with prayers to honour my father and other ancestors in Japanese.

And obviously in both cases the respective invasions would have been “moral”.

3. So, in reality all invasions must be judged on the moral relativity rather than absolutes.

4. For me the jury is still out on the moral judgement of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon 2006. Thus far I have heard nothing that makes that invasion moral. There is plenty of justification for the strategic and practical rationale, but that does not of itself make it moral. “Immoral but necessary” perhaps would summarise my view.

You have already made your judgement based upon your own moral views on the matter. That is your right.

There, as I see it, lies the difference in our views on the matter.

I don’t know where I said that invasion must involve a permanent occupation. Indeed if that were the case and one takes a signifigantly long view than the term would mean absolutely nothing. Invasion, as far as I am concerned, is simply a military incursion into territory control by an enemy/oppossing force.

Paramilitary groups have invaded Israel from Lebanon numerous times. Israel has invaded Lebanon numerous times as well.

Due to you continued dancing I am now less sure where you stand on ‘invasions.’ I presumed that you felt there was a difference between allied invasions during WWII and Axis invasions during the same war. I now wonder if I was wrong, and I hope you will clarify that.

Do you think the Normandy invasion and the invasion of Italy (two examples) were morally wrong? I know you hate answering questions in a way that can be understood, but please try.

There are people who argue that “this murder is worse than that”. They are both still murders.

You are arguing that “this invasion is worse than that”. It is still an invasion.

What upsets me, what I object to the most strongly, is that it is not the nature or the fact of the invasion that makes it “more bad or less bad”.

The judgement of “less bad or more bad” seems to depend more upon who is doing the invading.

That, in my mind, is just wrong. That is moral relativism at its worst.

“For example, in WWII both the Axis and the Allies invaded France. I suspect that you don’t in fact think that both of those invasions had the degree of justification. Indeed, most of us think that one was wrong and the other was noble.”

And yes, there go my feet marching directly into the relativists camp.

Sure as hell I would object to Aussies tossing bombs into my little patch. Sure as hell I would want to toss them back and more. There are all manner of niceties and semantics that can be used to confuse and muddy that ground.

I still don’t know of any occasion when Lebanon has invaded Israel. Not if you use the term (as all of your last post indicates) to indicate invasion and permanent occupation as distinct from incursion and withdrawal (and degree is noted there as well…).

Using your parallel of WW2 and France, how does that match with Lebanon/Israel, or Gaza/Israel? At first whiff, the comparison can lead to the equate Israel-Germany; not the conclusion that I know you would draw or even want, nor a comparison that I think is entirely warranted. So, how does that comparison apply?

For example, murder is murder but we hold some murders, long planning, torture, multiple victims to be worse than other murders, crimes of passion for example.

While I certainly think that a man who shoots his wife upon catching her in adultery is wrong and guilty of murder and must be punished, I certainly think that a man who stalks, tortures and kills little kids is worse.

Invasion of course contains even more nuances. Unlike ‘murder’ which has a moral compenent as part of the defintion of the word (all murders are wrong, killing that isn’t wrong isn’t murder) invasion is itself morally neutral, merely a descriptive act. For example, in WWII both the Axis and the Allies invaded France. I suspect that you don’t in fact think that both of those invasions had the degree of justification. Indeed, most of us think that one was wrong and the other was noble.

I have also been accused of moral absolutism for arguing that murder is murder irrespective of who does it.

Seems that relativism is alive and well in the realms of international politics.

It is not the act of invasion that makes it right or wrong. It is who does the invading that makes the difference, huh!

I quoted what you said in my post. While you didn’t say Israel, you did say Lebanon’s southern neighbor. Unless my geography is off, that would have to be Israel. You make it clear that you think if Lebanon had tried to take control of its southern territory, Israel would have somehow viewed that as an act of agression.

Don’t try to hide what you are clearly saying.

You will note that I didn’t call you an anti-semite. Although you frequently make statements that strike me as such, and your worldview and theories seem to mesh quite closely with groups and people who are clearly anti-semites, I take you at your word that you have no personal antipathy toward Jews. In some ways, that seems worse to me. If you were repeating these theories and paranoid notions out of a hatred for Jews, you would at least know what you were doing.

I can certainly see differences in all the invasions and occupations that are mentioned. They have different causes and different degrees of justifications, they evidence different behaviors on the part of the occupying forces. The simplistic view that everything that is bad is equally bad seems at the root of your cognative dissonance here.

My statement I stand by - that the Lebanese Army is in southern Lebanon for the first time in thirty years.

If you wish to “blame” that absence on the Israeli occupation, or the Syrian occupation that is fine by me.

The truth is that the Syrian occupation was initially seen (when it happened) as a boon - one that would stop the “Lebanese” from taking continual and annoying pot-shots at the Israelis. It also put into southern Lebanon a force that was capable of standing against the Israelis. That outcome suited (at the time) Lebanese, Western and Arab interests.

When the Israelis invaded and occupied southern Lebanon, it was trumpeted to the world at large as “a defensive occupation”. The first occupation was also seen by some as an effective means of preventing “atrocities” against the Shi’a south, particularly by the Druze from the north. A view that was ultimately disproven in tragic circumstances. The second occupation was again trumpeted as “defensive”. It had the desired effect of stopping the occasional rocket hitting Israel. That in truth is about all that it achieved.

My reply was to tie Patrick’s point to yours as much as anything.

If Hezbollah has been supported by Syria and Iran, what has the West done to support Lebanon? More to the point, what has the West done to try and make their alternative worthy of consideration by the people of South Lebanon? What is the west doing now to try and break the links between south Lebanon and the “evils” of the east other than suppress the Lebanese even further? Is the west going to provide an effective defence for Lebanon in place of an armed Hezbollah?

Answers -

Nothing.
Nothing.
Place them in a “secure refugee camp”.
No.

In truth, I have great difficulty in finding differences between the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and other instances - such as Iraq’s short occupation of Kuwait, Syria’s occupation of Lebanon, Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands, Egypt’s occupation of Sinai, the continuing mutual invasions of Ethiopia and Somalia, Russia’s occupation of Afghanistan…

That does not make me an anti-semite, Dave.

Oh, and I agree!! It is good to have you back Dave!