Losing its Morals and Marbles: Israel’s Fight for Lebanon

Losing its Morals and Marbles: Israel’s Fight for Lebanon

By Remi Kanazi

8-21-06, 8:48 am

If Hezbollah were a military, given Western standards, it would certainly be the most moral in the world. During Israel’s five week offensive, Hezbollah killed 118 Israeli soldiers and 41 Israeli civilians (18 of which were Israeli Palestinians). Hezbollah killed three Israeli soldiers for every one Israeli civilian. In contrast, Israeli forces killed more than 1000 Lebanese civilians during the onslaught (more bodies are expected to be discovered during the current period of “calm”). Robert Fisk, based in Lebanon, reported, “They are digging them up by the hour.” Israeli forces killed 25 Lebanese civilians for every Israeli civilian killed by Hezbollah.

Israel claims it killed three to four hundred Hezbollah fighters during the 33 day war. Hezbollah argues the number is much lower, but since the world maintains that Hezbollah is a “terrorist organization,” Hezbollah’s figure is swiftly rejected. Supposing Israel’s numbers are accurate, the state still killed roughly three Lebanese civilians for every one Hezbollah fighter.

Although the issue of proportionality was discussed in the US media, the issue of disproportionate coverage of the conflict was not. The American population’s strong reaction to the media’s coverage of the loss of civilian life in Lebanon—albeit its extremely minimal coverage—enhanced pressure for the eventual cease-fire. The Bush administration’s “green light” quickly turned red when it realized widespread regional chaos may bring harsh repercussions during an election season. One can only assume citizen pressure for a US pullout of Iraq would have been stronger if the US media properly reported the conflict and shown even a handful of the endless images of immense suffering the Iraqis are enduring due to US occupation.

Israel estimates that more than 4,000 Katushya rockets were fired across its borders during the five weeks of fighting—this was extensively reported throughout the US media. It brings one back to Wolf Blitzer’s opening news segments on the crisis in the Middle East: “Hezbollah rockets hit deeper into Israel and closer to Tel Aviv.” Similarly, it takes me back to images of a disheveled Tucker Carlson reporting the hard news in front of Israeli tanks firing “retaliatory” artillery shells on the civilian population of Lebanon. Yet, 4,000 Katushya rockets pale in comparison to the amount of force used by Israel, which one cannot put an exact figure on because the US media has yet to offer up the information (apparently the media didn’t want to complicate us with too many statistics). The Lebanese government, however, did state that Israeli air and ground forces destroyed approximately 30,000 buildings throughout Lebanon—300 high-rise buildings in southern Beirut alone.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/3951/1/205/

others to resign, the Govt of Israel is the big loser in this fight.

If Hezbollah were a military, given Western standards, it would certainly be the most moral in the world.

that's the first time i've ever heard a group sworn to the destruction of Israel and the eradication of Jews in the region described as "moral"....

the statement is highly conditional.

Violently attacking another nation (not in defense from such an attack) is the most immoral act a nation can commit. It is the one act that should be absolutely forbidden whenever and wherever and it is attempted.

Whatever a nation does in its active defense against an act of aggression is one of the most moral acts any nation can commit.

Those who have this backward are extremely dangerous people who think that its OK to attack and kill people if they make you mad enough. These are the people who start wars or encourage those who start wars. Their sick views of morality are responsible for many millions of deaths of innocent people in this world - just in the last 100 years alone. They should be ridiculed and condemned publicly.

Robert Fisk: Lebanon's pain grows by the hour as death toll hits 1,300

Published: 17 August 2006

They are digging them up by the hour, the swelling death toll of the Lebanon conflict. The American poet Carl Sandburg spoke of the dead in other wars and imagined that he was the grass under which they would be buried. "Shovel them under and let me work," he said of the dead of Ypres and Verdun. But across Lebanon, they are systematically lifting the tons of rubble of old roofs and apartment blocks and finding families below, their arms wrapped around each other in the moment of death as their homes were beaten down upon them by the Israeli air force. By last night, they had found 61 more bodies, taking the Lebanese dead of the 33-day war to almost 1,300.

In Srifa, south of the Litani river, they found 26 bodies beneath ruins which I myself stood on just three days ago. At Ainata, there were eight more bodies of civilians. A corpse was discovered beneath a collapsed four-storey house north of Tyre and, near by, the remains of a 16-year old girl, along with three children and an adult. In Khiam in eastern Lebanon, besieged by the Israelis for more than a month, the elderly village "mukhtar" was found dead in the ruins of his home.

Not all the dead were civilians. At Kfar Shuba, dumper-truck drivers found the bodies of four Hizbollah members. At Roueiss, however, all 13 bodies found in the wreckage of eight 10-storey buildings were civilians. They included seven children and a pregnant woman. Ten more bodies were disentangled from the rubble of the southern suburbs of Beirut - where local people claimed they could still hear the screams of neighbours trapped far below the bomb-smashed apartment blocks. The Lebanese civil defence organisation - almost as brave as the Lebanese Red Cross in trying to save lives under fire - believe at least three families may be trapped in basements deep below the wreckage.

Ignoring the dangers of unexploded ordnance, several Lebanese Shia Muslims returned to their destroyed homes to retrieve personal belongings - including family snapshots and albums that contain the narrative of their lives - only to fall between gaps in the broken apartment blocks and plunge dozens of feet into the darkness beneath. Among the last to die only minutes before the UN ceasefire came into effect was a child who was found in her dead mother's arms in Beirut.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1219684.ece

Israel did not go after Hezbollah, but attacked Lebanon and its people.

. . the citizens of another state. That is an act of war that inevitably results in the deaths of many innocent civilians. All of the saddest stories of civilization are started with such events.

You can not condemn a state for defending itself. Unless you can show that Israel was trying to kill Lebanese civilians and did not care if there were Hizbullah targets in its sights - then you must give Israel the benefit of the doubt - because Israel was attacked by Hizbullah.

Even if Israel attacked Lebanese civilians with no defensive purpose - which I do not believe they did - even those attacks can be justified if they are necessary to end hostilities initiated by the other state. That's what happened to Dresden and Hiroshima in the attempt to bring WWII to a close. Those were terribly unfortunate events - yet arguments can reasonably be made that they saved many lives of our soldiers and liberated many thousands of them from prison camps and brought them home to their familes months or years before they would otherwise have been freed.

War is really shitty. That's why we (the UN with our help) should kick the hell out of anybody who starts one. It's a simple rule. You do not attack other states or people. Period. Every Arab state except Jordan and Egypt hold the current policy of destrying Israel and most have tried to do so more than once. Hizbullah has sworn to destroy Israel. Israel had nothing but hopes for good relations with Lebanon. Israel has always preferred negotiation to war when she had that option. This is all well-documented and substantiated fact.

You have offered nothing to contradict these facts. Yet you accuse Israel of inhumane actions - while completely ignoring the actions of Hizbullah who is legally and morally responsible for all the deaths that occurred because Hizbullah attacked Israel.

Show me any evidence that the Lebanese who were killed by Israel's actions were not killed as the result of Israel being forced to defend her borders and the lives of her citizens. You must be able to do that in order to blame Israel for their deaths. You have not done that.

I can't possibly understand why anyone who wasn't anti-Israel and probably anti-Jew as well could be that unfair and unrealistic.

(a) War is real shitty. This is no reason to justify human rights abuses and state sponsored crimes.
(b) Dresden and Hiroshima. General Curtis le May publicly admitted that he should be tried as a war criminal if the USA hadn't won.
(c) Hezbollah attacked Israel. Nope, they captured IDF members that were prancing around on occupied lebanese territory. They did not 'attack' Israel.
Why are you making a logic pretzel to defend these horrid actions on Israel's part?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

(a) Human right are inalienable. Have you heard of the UN Charter?
(b) Curtis le May realized the enormity of his actions. Much like Feynman realized, after the fact, that his research in Los Alamos had resulted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You realize you did something bad, you resolve to not do it again, and furthermore you warn others of the lesson learned .
(c) This is a key point, important to Israeli propaganda, since it lends a slight whiff of solid ground to the insane response. But that is all it is.

a) If human rights are inalienable then why are there people in prison?

b) There were millions of Americans in that war. The majority of those who put their life on the line in that war agreed that using the bomb was necessary to end the war when we did and save hundreds of thousands of American (and more Japanese civilians lives than were lost) by doing so. Some Americans disagree. That's good. This Is America.

c) In war there are aggressors and defenders. It's seldom this easy to figure out which is which - unless one has an anti-Israel agenda which apparently causes some hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth.

No one said things were perfect. Not sure they will ever be. But you are still not allowed to shamelessly go around espousing the evil side of the coin for the simple reason that it is there.

Which evil side of which coin do you accuse me of espousing? Please answer. I want to respond but I'm getting tired and need to sleep. You people wear me out.

You are assuming a technocratic worldview, with no sense of humanity. Sociopathic, if you ask me, where the firebombing of a city -albeit belonging to a sworn enemy - is a justified action, for the simple reason that they have been labeled as the enemy.
This is the same thing that I keep bumping into here, in this forum..."It is perfectly reasonable to kill innocent lebanese civilians...why?...because their leaders said that we ought to be wiped off the map." It is almost like comparing apples with oranges.

For example, you claim that I believe that "It is perfectly reasonable to kill innocent lebanese civilians...why?...because their leaders said that we ought to be wiped off the map."

Some Lebanese civilians are going to die if they are near Hizbullah targets - because that is the only way Hizbullah can be stopped from firing missiles and killing Israeli civilians. Hizbullah is the aggressor. Israel has a right to do whatever is necessary (within reason) to stop them. They fire from civilian areas, they place their headquarters and weapons stores in civilian areas and use ambulances to move fighters. It is therefore highly likely (due to Hizbullah's tactics) that some Lebanese will die when Israel tries to stop Hizbullah.

Those deaths are all Hazbullah's fault for

1) starting the war and

2) fighting from civilian neighborhoods.

Not because Hizbullah said Israel should be wiped from the map. That only verifies Hizbullah's motives beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are the aggressor.

See you tomorrow.

"You people.."

These words uttered by a critic of Israeli policy would generate a lot of heat.

Therein it fails the test for legitimate discourse. It also demonstrates some degree of chauvinism and chutzpah.

Extremely. Bad. Form.

. . at the start of a sentence should be capitalized.

Also, when I read your words I can detect a "New Yawk" accent coming through the internet pipes - which, of course, along with bad punctuation, proves that you are wrong.

Therein it fails the test for legitimate discourse and good writing skills.

Extremely. Bad. Form.

Certainly you're not reduced to this as a form of argument. B-)

that you would emulate mypost, but please try to be original. Cutting and pasting from megaphone is a breeding ground for lazy writing habits.

"Youse people" are kinda funny in pitiful sorta way.

The death toll on the lebanese side is increasing, as predicted.
Do you think that this is a meaningless thing?

Tens of thousands of homes were destroyed in Lebanon. Muslim or christian, it hardly mattered. Bridges bombed. roads bombed. ambulances bombed. hospitals bombed.

Over the years hundreds of thousands of fruit (mostly olive) trees have been destroyed by Israel in the West Bank and Palestine. Thousands of Palestinian homes destryed. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians arrested over the years. Many tortured. Israel supports Bush's war against Iraq. Where over a hundred thousand have been killed.

I do not support the platform of Hezbollah or Hamas, but maybe we should look at the actual *Practice* of the Israeli government first. It's the one that seems hellbent on destruction.

support it has. That's the only thing that will force them to the negotiating table.

And it's shocking the number of civilians killed by Israel in all it's wars, and even more shocking the children. It blows my mind that there are people here, or anywhere, that manage to find excuses for this. There is no excuse for killing innocent children.

http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=165

how would you suggest getting them to the negotiating table?

both widely practiced by Israel supporters.

And both wasted on me.

. . the killing of innocent children. (They are all innocent IMO.)

It seems to me the reply was right on the money.

And Muslims? (Sorry I cut/pasted this a month ago but can't find the attribution)
Many Muslims believe that Bush and Israel see them as animals to be slain. On July 17, neocon John Bolton, Bush’s unconfirmed ambassador to the UN, gave credence to this Muslim belief when he announced that Israelis killed by terrorists were more important than the Lebanese civilians killed by Israel. Bolton said that there is no “moral equivalence” between Lebanese civilians killed by Israel and Israeli civilians killed by Muslim terrorists: “It’s simply not the same thing to say that it’s the same act to deliberately target innocent civilians, to desire their deaths, to fire rockets and use explosive devices or kidnapping versus the sad and highly unfortunate consequences of self-defense.”
In Bolton’s sick mind, Lebanese civilians are not experiencing terrorism when Israel deliberately targets them and drops high explosives on their apartment buildings, streets, bridges, power plants, and bombs the Beirut International Airport. This, says Bolton, is Israel acting in self-defense.
If Israel grabs Palestinian or Lebanese land and murders civilians, that is “self-defense,” but if someone responds to Israeli aggression with a rocket, that is “Muslim terrorism.”

check out #964 - "Jews Turn into Apes and Pigs in an Clay-mation Film for Children on Hizbullah TV"

http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=165#

that image you suggest is deeply implanted & reinforced through many media outlets across the Muslim world:

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/syria/media_1_04.htm

any misconception about Jews seeing *anyone* as "animals to be slain" comes from their own propaganda.

People who start wars by attacking their neighbors and pledging themselves to their neighbors' destruction are bad people. They deserve to be killed.

People who are defending their nation from those attacks are good people who should be supported.

When it comes down to it, if all of Israel's enemies put down their weapons today, there would be no war. If Israel put down her weapons today there would be no Israel.

That is the underlying reality that any person with half a brain can see - and it makes Bolton and the neo-cons sound very sensible to most Americans (despite their fuckups) - and makes many here at DU seem like people who could never ever be trusted with protecting America from people who want to kill us - like they did on 9/11.

Unfortunately, there is no power greater in the human mind than ideological beliefs. Reason and logic do not even come close. Therefore, many on the far left will continue in their ideological belief that there is some moral equivalency between Israel and Hizbullah. They will succeed in their mission to make sure that no Dem will ever be elected president for many many years.

the U.S.'s? Is Israel not viable without U.S. support? We are a secular state. I am wondering if we fighting the BS GWOT because of Israel?

and give in to those who use terrorism to further their goals of annihlating Israel?

what will you do when they decide you do something else they don't like?

my question?...(maybe you have no answers or maybe you are feeling insecure as to Israel's viability, hard to tell)

i don't think America supports Israel because it wouldn't be viable without it, they are our ally.

as an ally, America doesn't abandon their support because it makes us less popular with those who wish Israel's destruction... nor is America naive enough to think that abandoning Israel would make us all chummy with groups like Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and Hamas... that's one part of this conflict that isn't complicated.

and really, blaming Israel for the war on terror? it's bad enough to think that appeasing terrorists would make them hate America less, but to give their tactics legitimacy by blaming the victims?

. . there are many reasons we should support Israel.

1) The UN, with the agreement of the US and Britain in 1948, decided that part of dealing with the millions of displaced refugees at the end of WWII would include setting aside part of the Territory of Palestine as a homeland for Jews. So, we are somewhat responsible for Israel's fate.

2) Jews have lived in this area uninterrupted for 4000 years - although most were displaced in the Diaspora.

3) Israel has attempted to follow UN rules and resolutions and has not initiated the use of force against her neighbors. (242 is a matter of different interpretation. It was written so that different interpretations could exist because that was the only way it would pass. Therefore Israel is not in violation of it.) OTOH Israel has been repeatedly attacked by her neighbors. The UN, the US and the west generally have a policy of supporting lawfull nations against tyranny.

3) Israel is a democracy. We have a general policy of supporting democracies because they are less likely than dicatorships to attack their neighbors and start wars or to oppress their minorities and women.

4) Israel is a democracy in a volatile part of the world where it is good to have friends. Israel is our friend.

5) It's the right thing to do.

the GWOT is global war on terror, kinda like a friendship ring, being good buddies sharing stuff and all that.

generally it means something alongs the lines of:

a) Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. hate Israel
b) the US supports Israel
c) any attacks by those in a) on the US are because of b)
d) abandon Israel, and terrorism will no longer be a problem

sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

give them bigger bombs, and I'm wagering that their morality would suddenly be found to rest on other principles, not the civilian death toll. Their morality is simply because their technology provided force that 'paled' in comparison to Israel's.

The reason for the civilian/soldier breakdown has primarily to do with luck (they accidentally hit some reservists) and Israel's going in on the ground. Had the Israelis not committed ground forces, the skew would be much different. Hezb wanted to fight a defensive war, when the time came, IMHO; they got one.

On the other hand, we don't know the ratio for civilians/Hezbollah killed by Israel. Unless we assume that we have the correct numbers from the Lebanese side. And that's quite an article of faith. Even if we take the IDFs numbers, all we have is the number of 'fighters' that were counted by Israel; not those that were killed by retaliatory bombing, or away from the battlefield. After all, if we're counting reservists killed before deployment, we should count *all* undeployed reservists. This would probably adjust the skew to make Israel slightly more moral, since that's apparently the basis of Kenazi's moral calculus. Not intent; not outcome conditioned on force used; just on the skew, morality without intent. Interesting kind of calculus.

Yes, the only kind of morality that makes Israel the bad guys and Hizbullah the good guys.

People tend to believe what feels good and then use their brains to justify it. This is far more likely the more ideological the beiefs.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda and a money trail of billions of death dollars for bombs seem to me to lead to Israel. The US is largely disliked in the middle-east. Anti-Americanism in the region is driven largely by an aversion to US policies, such as the war on Iraq, the war on terrorism, both of which, it could be argued, stem from US support for Israel. I think we should acknowledge the linkage. You know...kind of a starting point.

there isn't much doubt that a lot (although certainly not all) of the anti-US sentiment in the middle east stems from American support for Israel.

the question is how do you respond to that? do you abandon Israel to those who wish it's destruction or do you stand by your ally?

even-handedness? for a start?