Simple Question: Does Israel have a right to defend itself?

Simple yes or no.

There is no such thing as a simple question when it comes to that region.

If they do have the right to defend themselves, then the question becomes a matter of tactics -- as you say, how much, where, etc... Those are legitimate questions, too.

But at the root is the first question: DO they have a right to defend themselve?

different then Bush's gang -- the more Lebanon footage I see from MSM the more it looks like 9-11!!

it is: Do they have a right to defend themselves?

Do you stop someone from hitting you by use of "just enough force" to stop and restrain them?

Or do you beat the living shit out of them. And then kick them while they're down until they stop breathing AND in the process take out the 17 people who just happen to be in the proximity?

your patience, and beat the living daylights out of them so they
will never harass you again. That is the only tactic which can work
against cronic harassers.

Orson Scott Card and think he's great.

I disagree with your conclusion, btw. Violence only brings about more violence - sooner or later.

IMO actual results always trump theory. So, if you examine how
some of the recent wars (all very violent) ended, it made me wonder.
WWII ended only after Japan was nuked and Germany was firebombed till
city after city burned to ground. Today, Japan and Germany are our best
trading partners and good allies.

Korean war ended with a truce, and peace never came. N. Korea is still
at odds with S. korea and USA.

In Viet-Nam, United States pulled out and the North Vietnamese beat the
living daylights out of what was left of the S. Vietnam forces. Now they
are a unified country and living in peace.

So, I have to believe, based on actual results, peace comes when one of
the combatants is thoroughly defeated. If Bush I had pursued Sadam's fleeing
military into Baghdad in Gulf War I, and killed them off, Iraq may have
turned out different.

You are making the mistake of only looking at war and not looking at peace, and then implying that peace has shown no results. It was Gandhi and his followers who defeated the British in India and they did it nonviolently.

Here in the US Martin Luther King led another movement that achieved great victorys through non-violent actions. Why don't you mention these events and instead only focus on war?

You can not possibly deny that peace has won some big victories throughout history.

How has that worked for Israel over the past 40+ years? If brutality was the answer Israel would have solved their problems long ago. Just how reasonable is it to keep making the same mistakes and expecting different results.

However, how they go about doing it can be debated.

no problem saying yes to this without defining "defend" to a great degree.

I didn't answer the poll because it's kinda like that "have you stopped beating your wife" question.

There is "defend" and there is "over-kill".

's why my boys take kung fu. Just enough force to overpower your attacker and subdue them. Not to be used for OFFENSIVE measures, purely DEFENSIVE measures, and only to the point you have to. That's it. No more, no less. And NO "getting angry" in the process or you're toast.

appropriate without getting into too much detail and without creating a definition to cover every possible circumstance.

didn't know as there was only a "yes" or "no" answer. And some people think what they're doing is "just defensive" and some people think what they're doing is "overkill".

Everyone has a right to "defend themself" - but they don't have the right to burn down the neighborhood because the kid down the street is a bully.

The Israeli government is really screwing up. The best that all Jews can do now is to stand up and denounce it. 5000 Israelis stood up today to denounce the Israeli government. That is a start. There should be millions in the street demanding a new govenment.

Does Israel have a right to defend itself?

Never thought I'd see it used as a defense for warfare here on DU though. The thread starter question would have been less biased if they asked if Israel had a right to do what it is doing; bombing a civilian population.



Educate Your Local Freepers!
Flaunt Your Opinions With Buttons, Stickers and Magnets from BrainButtons.com
>

If Britain had the "right" to carve Palestine out of the remnants of the old Ottoman empire, and the UN had the "right" to carve Israel out of Palestine, and Israel had the "right" to exclude palestinians from governmental and economic participation - then yes, Israel has the right to defend itself. However, those aforementioned "rights" haven't sufficiently been established, IMO.

it's a matter of might. Whether the British of the U.N. had the right to carve up Palestine is now immaterial.

Just a shallow excuse for terrorism

which I hope are coming, which go into the matter of exactly how Israel should go about defending itself and when.

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

Then you have a definite answer, and thus a response to this poll.

"Then you have a definite answer, and thus a response to this poll."

The question is a flame in itself. Those critical of Israel's actions in Lebanon have been decrying the means of defense and, perhaps, questioning if the attack is indeed one of self-defense.

I can only think that the OP's objective is to turn a complex question into a simplistic one... one that is amenable to the more radical pro-Israel group's objective of justifying the unjustifiable. I refused to fall for that trap and put the question in context.

It's just asking a fundamental question. And obviously, it's not as easy to answer as one might think.

Edit: It's not as easy for some people to answer as one might think.

"It's just asking a fundamental question. And obviously, it's not as easy to answer as one might think."

The only difficulty arises when the question is put into the context of the current excesses in Lebanon.

As a hypothetical question there is no need to make it - every country has such a right, defended by international law.

According to international law, "last resort" doesn't apply when there is an imminent threat or on-going attack, infrastructure can be targetted if doing so supports the accomplishment of military objectives, and civilians are liable to collateral damage -- the only requirement is that the reasonably predictable harm to civilians be necessary and "appropriate" to the military objectives. Defining that last is obviously subjective, but it is what it is. Usually comes down to whether the war itself is considered justified, because civilians will always be "liable to collateral damage" in any war. So long as Israel is not actually targetting civilians, and so far they do not appear to be (unlike Hezbollah), they probably cannot be held in violation of the law.

The main legal question facing Israel is whether their actions are proportional. That is, are they doing more than is necessary to prevent further attacks upon Israeli citizens and territory? That's highly subjective too, but it sort of depends upon the capability and intent of Syria and/or Iran to reinforce and resupply Hezbollah, assuming interdiction is the purpose of the attacks on Lebanese transportation systems. We really don't have much information to judge.

"According to international law, "last resort" doesn't apply when there is an imminent threat or on-going attack..."

True.

"The main legal question facing Israel is whether their actions are proportional. That is, are they doing more than is necessary to prevent further attacks upon Israeli citizens and territory? That's highly subjective too, but it sort of depends upon the capability and intent of Syria and/or Iran to reinforce and resupply Hezbollah, assuming interdiction is the purpose of the attacks on Lebanese transportation systems. We really don't have much information to judge."

I think that it is patently clear and obvious that the reprisals are NOT proportional.

As for the capability and intent of Syria and/or Iran, one could also point to the US resupplying the IDF.

Then they are definitely not proportional. But I don't think you can assume they are.

If otoh they are interdiction missions in a larger, unified operation to defeat Hezbollah, then they may indeed be justified. Legally speaking, that is.

Personally, I'm sort of skeptical that Hezbollah can be defeated militarily. Especially when I don't see the US doing its part to negotiate what comes next. Well, what can we expect? BushCo doesn't do "what comes next" very well. But maybe Israel feels it's something they have to try, given that Hezbollah has been getting more capable weapons and demonstrating more willingness to use them.

It's probably "fair" in some sense to compare logistical support to Hezbollah from Syria/Iran to the support we provide Israel. But it has no bearing legally. Two entities at war with each other are free to seek assistance from other nations or entities. And to attempt to prevent the opposing entity from receiving that support. And in doing so, to risk the animosity of the third party providing support. It gets complicated, but is a normal part of alliance warfare.

All that said, I'm not really sure what Israel's purpose is in its attacks on Lebanese targets. Like I said, I don't think we have enough information to know for sure. And I'm not willing, in the absense of information, to assume the worst. But I can't see that Israel has any intention to occupy Lebanon, or install a different government. It just makes no sense for them to want a permanent enemy on their northern border. Do they think they can bully Lebanon to act against Hezbollah on their own? That doesn't seem likely, since it would have been in Lebanon's own interest to take out Hezbollah if they had that capability. I am thinking, or hoping, there has to be more to it, but it may just be that Israel's current prime minister is as incompetent and self-serving as our own president. That's a depressing thought.

...is ideologically-driven.

It is no secret that the PNAC gang (GOP AND DLC) are closely tied to RW Israeli thinktanks. Nor is it a secret that all these groups have a worldview which is somewhat divorced from reality (obviating core causes because they usually run against their ideological values such as free-marketism, etc) to the point of cognitive dissonance.

Time and time again the "hawks" of the world see that the use of force is somehow licit and expedient. Yet historically this is only true in the case of annihilation and total war.

What I have not seen in the US press coverage, btw, is Siniora's comments on Hezbollah and the Shaba Farms. On the BBC and in the Spanish press, well before the invasion there were comments on them - that if Israel returned this tiny area to Lebanon, the Lebanese government would have a stronger hand in disarming Hezbollah. After all, Hezbollah's raisson d'etre is as a resistance movement against Israel, and besides the constant aerial incursions over Lebanon and Lebanese prisoners in Israel the only remaining point of contention is this handkerchief of land.

Utimately I have to sadly agree with you - Israel's PM is as incompetent as ours, and for the same reason. It is based on the conservative mindset; http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Jost%20&%20Hunyady%20(2005)%20Antecedents%20and%20Consequences%20of%20Syste.pdf

Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure,
regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r
.50); system instability (.47);dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.

http://www.wam.umd.edu/%7Ehannahk/bulletin.pdf

Even tho I'm not a big DLC fan, but it's for reasons having to do with their political manipulations within our own party, not their ideology. Big tent and all.

I do agree that our PNACers have no concept of what the use of force entails. I don't think that's as true of Israeli right-wingers, mostly because they have seen war up close. They have almost to a man (or woman) served in the military, and their children all serve as well. They live with all the risks and consequences of war. They are not so naive as to think war is something that only happens to other people. So I think they are less likely to view war as "expedient," altho I do believe they see it as unfortunately necessary in a way that, hopefully, most Americans never will.

I heard Shaba Farms mentioned on C-SPAN WJ a couple mornings ago. Can't remember the details much, but I remember sort of thinking it is just an excuse. I do not believe that Hezbollah or its patrons would be any differently disposed toward Israel if any piece of territory were not in the equation. That is not to say that I don't think Israel must at some point get out of the occupation business, for her own good. I just don't think it would make any difference with respect to her Muslim enemies who, I believe, are most motivated by simple hatred.

"I can't go along with lumping PNAC and the DLC"

Take it up with Will Marshall, who signed at least two PNAC manifestos. Furthermore:

"Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neocon figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson of PNAC. (8) At the request of the Bush administration, PNAC's Bruce Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair together with John McCain, aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with Robert Kerrey (who coauthored Progressive Internationalism), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. (9) Other advisers included James Woolsey, Elliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA-a wellspring of neoconservative strategy-to sign a letter to President Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall and others asked the president to "act alone if that proves necessary" and then, as a follow-up to a military-induced regime change in Iraq, to implement a democratization plan. The SD/USA letter urged the president to commit his administration to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." Others signing the SD/USA letter included Hillel Fradkin, Rachelle Horowitz, Bruce Jackson, Penn Kemble, Robert Kagan, James Woolsey, Nina Shea, Michael Novak, Clifford May, and Ben Wattenberg.

With regards to Hezbollah and Shaba Farms, Siniora expressly mentioned that Shaba Farms represents a means to disarming Hezbollah. Hizbollah was founded on the basis of resistance to Israel - if Israel was not occupying any Lebanese territory (or holding any Lebanese prisoners), Hezbollah's support would be diminished, making it possible to go against its military arm.

Its NON-military arm is neither a threat nor a problem.

diplomatic alternatives first? That's just not so.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

-----------

Article 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

If this isn't good enough for you, there's more in other areas of international law.

Of course Israel has a right to defend itself. Just as clearly, this right doesn't justify its attack on innocent civilians in Lebanon. The murder of civilians in Lebanon was not "collateral damage" from an attack on a military target; it was a deliberate targeting of civilians.

first. We all agree (I hope) that each state has the right to defend itself. Now we can move on to the next question...is that occurring here?

We must jump right to the most pressing question regarding the issue, once we figure out what that is, and kick off the cacophony of opinions and discordant facts.

This does not mean, IMHO, that they have the right to do absolutely anything they want, as long as they call it self defense. There are certain principles and laws that govern self defense. There is proportionality, and the law against collective punishment and targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. There is just plain common sense about what courses are actually likely to lead to greater security for your own country, and what courses are likely to leave you less secure.

Let's not forget that the Iraq invasion was also done in the name of "self defense".

I don't buy that what Israel is doing right now is justified or appropriate or likely to lead to a desireable outcome for anybody.

Your post gave me deja vu. I guess I need to start reading the thread before I answer the question

This is very interesting! Keep the replies coming...

:kick:

So do you, I guess.

If I steal something from you, using force against your attempts to get it back is not "defending myself".

For precisely the same reasons, Israel will not have the right to use military force against the Palestinians and their allies except in very limited specific fashions unless and until it withdraws to the Green Line, because such force will not *be* defending itself; claiming something of someone elses and hanging onto it by force is an attack, not a defence.

What is happening right now in Lebanon is total aggression by Israel. They are not going after Hezbollah, they are targeting innocent civilians, airfields, homes, and businesses. Just after they rebuilt that country, now Israel has to go in and destroy it. If they really wanted to go after Hezbollah, they would have been more strategic and after them in South Lebanon. Not destroying Beirut.

John

As simple as I can make it.

you shouldn't have requested it.

For the record, I didn't vote.

Three people did provide a simple "no."

They don't have to explain it (which is why I asked with "please"), but I think their replies would be interesting to many here -- because the fundamental question IS really a simple one, and not everyone may believe the answer is "yes."

that the people who voted 'no' did so because they found the poll manipulative?

Pretty high, I'd say.

don't vote it in.

But at the same time, it's definitely a manipulative poll.

I mean, is it that much different than some anti-choice person asking 'Simple question: Should we kill babies, yes or no?' Of course the answer is 'no.' But it oversimplifies the issue, neatly dividing people into those who want to kill babies and those who don't. Excluded is the question of what a baby is, despite it being the very core of the debate.

Same difference when it comes to 'right to defense.' The real question is what 'defense' means. But the pollster doesn't want to discuss that, insisting that it's a "simple" yes/no question. Wasn't too long ago that this same kind of framing turned all of us into terr'ist-lovin' America-hating Osama fans.

Would you?

Can't you see that that's a separate question?

Whatever your view of "baby" is, should they be killed? In my view of "baby," no they should not be killed.

Whatever your view of "defend" may be, does Israel have a right to defend itself? In my view, yes.
Whether in this circumstance (or others) Israel is acting offensively or defensively is a separate question.

The fact that this is such a difficult question is just amazing to me.

those who support Choice are "baby killers".

Are you anti-choice?

edit typo

But you've gone beyond your first question ("Should we kill babies?") into a debate.

Debating whether what Israel is doing is defense or offense is legitimate. But this is a more fundamental question.

In my view, there's no ambiguity in my mind when I answer either question, based on my view of "defense" and "babies."

in order to answer the question.

Whose definition of "baby" will you use?

Whose definition of "baby" will you use?

Mine.

Which is why I have no qualms about saying directly and forthrightly, "We shouldn't kill babies."

who are using THEIR definition of "baby".

But their definition of "baby" is a separate question.

And their definition of "baby" isn't going to trap ME into saying, "I can't answer whether or not I think killing babies is wrong."

See what I'm saying?

But they might (mis)interpret your statement that you "think killing babies is wrong" - as being anti-choice.

See what I'm saying?

In order to communicate properly, all parties must agree on the terms being used.

So are we at

"Khidir beneath Momouteh"

or

"Sokath, his eyes uncovered"

??

I won't let rightwingers determine my language, I won't let them misunderstand me, and I WON'T let their framing push me into dodging around whether "killing babies is wrong."

(Or, whether or not Israel has a right to defend itself.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1711459

This isn't. Or rather, it wasn't meant to be.... But it did push some buttons, push some thoughts and push a debate, which -- if the answer to the question isn't obvious -- we need to have, imho.

Interesting.

Even more interesting.

It's a simple yes or no question.

I didn't jump to any conclusions based on a "Yes" answer in this poll, but apparently you did.

Similarly, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions based on someone saying "We should not kill babies," but apparently you did.

is the new part in your hair from the point zipping over your head.

Seemed to me you were TRYing to make a point that the question of "killing babies" is loaded, because the definition of "babies" isn't clear.

You were TRYing to relate that to the question of whether Israel has a right to defend itself, because the definition of "defend" isn't clear.

You were TRYing to prove that a "yes" or "no" answer isn't possible, without defining what "defense" is first. Otherwise, someone else might jump to a conclusion, you seem to contend, that "yes" indicates support of Israel's bombing of Beirut, etc.

MY point is that these are indeed two separate questions, and to say "Israel has a right to defend itself" is not an implicit agreement with their actions in this case, or others.

You proved my point when you showed the folly of leaping to conclusions on "killing babies."

There can always be debates on these issues, including definitions of terms. But to shy away from obvious statements, from fear others will jump to illogical conclusions, is its own folly, imho.

Clearly Israel has the right to take *some* actions in defence of its civilians, but there are a great many things, including many it is actually doing, that it does not have the right to do.

The question is a fairly clever trick; my suspicion (although obviously I may be being unjust) is that the poster phrased it that way to make anyone who doesn't regard all forms of Israeli self-defence as illegitimate accede to the position that Israel has the right to do whatsoever it likes in "self-defence".

Neither "no" nor "yes" is a good answer, but "no" is better.

If you want to rephrase the question as "Does Israel have a limited right to self-defence", I will answer yes; if you rephrase it as "Does Israel have an absolute right to self-defence", I will answer no; at present, I think the question is closer to the latter.



There is also the issue that Israeli violence against Arabs will not be "self-defence" until Israel stops trying to claim things other than its own territory; land outside the Green Line, which Israel is also "defending", is not "self".

a simple question. Those who voted no probably did so out of frustration at the stupidity of the question in the current context or spite to the poster of the question.

(I didn't waste my time voting btw)

Does Iraq have the right to defend themselves.

We are killing and raping civilians. So why aren't we arming the insurgents who are fighting that?

See how simple things are.

Sometimes things are not as simple as they seem, and sometimes they are.

The question I asked IS exactly as simple as it seems.
The underlying issue of Israel’s right to defend itself is NOT as simple as it may seem.

I asked the question because I wanted to see if it was a point of agreement here, or not. It may seem like a no-brainer – to me, it seems obvious that Israel has a right to defend itself. But because of the nature of its founding, Israel can be seen – consciously or not – as an illegitimate country, a western interloper on land that never belonged to them. Further, its western alliances, particularly its ties with Britain and the US, associate it with our aggressive policies in the middle east. All of that can indeed create an underlying resentment that does beg the question of whether Israel has a right to defend itself – even a right to exist.

So that has to be separated from questions and discussions of its specific actions – right or wrong. So is it truly a “no-brainer?” Obviously not – the question made many here very uncomfortable.

It was hard for many to separate that simple question from other questions about Israel’s actions in Lebanon. (Is it defense, offense, offense in the guise of defense, or some combination?)

This very simple question was termed “manipulative,” “the wrong question,” even a “false dichotomy!” It was called “typical of the conservative mindset” and evidence that I agree with Bush!

I find all of that very interesting. Is it that hard to say something as simple as yes, Israel has a right to defend itself? Is that being manipulated into supporting BushCo?

The question I asked IS as simple as it seems.
The underlying issues that made it so difficult to answer, apparently, are not.

A simple Yes or No.

Doesn't matter if you're even married or not. Or male or not. Or gay/straight or not. Just Yes or NO.

You may NOT waffle. You may NOT ask for definitions. You may NOT clarify.

Just answer the question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Yes

or

No

"Does Israel have a right to defend itself?"

You think that's the same as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Really??

Does the US have a right to defend itself?

One might have answered YES -

UNTIL

GWB decided "defending yourself" included an illegal/immoral invasion of another country.

I don't think it should contaminate the answer to the first one, to the point that the answer becomes "no" or "maybe" or "tricky"...

It's the exact same thing.

If you'd asked someone pre-Bush - does the US have the right to defend itself - you'd've gotten an overwhelming YES.

Now? Well - you'd get the same kind of questioning as you're getting on the Israel issue.

It's astonishing.

It's all a question of semantics. You're not anti-semantics, are you?

(That was good.)

Semantics shouldn't muddy our ability to make basic statements.

"We have a right to defend ourselves" should NOT, in my opinion, be anything but an obvious no-brainer.

It's also easy to point to a particular action (like invading Iraq) and say, "THAT is not 'defending ourselves'" and engage in a debate about it.

But let's not let BushCo/PNAC redefine "defending ourselves" to the point that we're afraid to say "We have a right to defend ourselves," and certainly not to the point that we have such a bitter taste from their bloody blunders that we actually question whether we have that right or not.

I think if we aren't careful, and don't question and affirm that right, we can start to see any and all military action as being wholly, automatically aggressive and entirely excluding self-defense, in a knee-jerk reaction of mistrust. That can reflect prejudices against our own country in general, born of our hatred for this administration; and I think to some extent, that's easily slipped into -- even unthinkingly -- when it comes to Israel.

So in some discussions, I see statements that seem to reflect an underlying dislike of Israel in general. Saying they have a right to defend themselves BUT bombing Beirut wasn't an act of defense, is different from saying without questioning, "How dare they do that, they have no right to fight" or "to create violence" or "to invade" or "to bomb" or "to use military force" or in other words, to defend themselves.

So it's worth asking, "DO they have a right to defend themselves?" I wondered if the question would get 100% "Yes of course they do, what are you talking about?!" and the poll would slip down the page; or, if it'd raise some issues.... which it did.

I don't think it's as easy a question as people want to believe on the face of it, because just saying "yes" seems to rub people the wrong way. It's like asking people to agree, somehow, with other things we don't want to agree with (even though it does NOT mean agreeing with those things)... It's harder to separate out than we may realize.

***because just saying "yes" seems to rub people the wrong way.***

BECAUSE........... at this point in time, saying "yes" - *might* (to the poster/answerer) indicate approval of the methodology being used.

and BECAUSE of the methodology currently being used, many canNOT bring themselves to answer "yes" - and BECAUSE - some don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater - can't answer "no", either.

I'm one of the ones who did not answer the poll question. It seemed way too loaded.

The question is very simple. Why isn't it easy to answer?

Why can't it be detached as a straightforward, simple, direct question? Why does "the methodology" have to be dragged into this question?

"Yes" does not indicate *anything* except "Yes, Israel has a right to defend itself."

We're in real danger when things that basic are so difficult to say!

If you think Israel does have that right, say it does. Then we know we're on the same page and can discuss what constitutes "defense" and what doesn't.

If you think it doesn't have that right, say it doesn't. Then we know we've got that to debate before anything else.

And beyond those, if you've never stopped to think about it, stop to think about it. I suspect there are a lot of underlying assumptions we all have until we look closer.

(As a perhaps far-fetched example: Many people who deep-down, consciously or not, believe black people are inferior, or who fear them taking their jobs, marrying their children, stealing their car, etc., will see and discuss anything concerning black people from that perspective -- it underlies everything they say, to the point that it's hard to separate out. If you ask directly, "Should black people have equal rights?" they balk at the question, because they know they should say "yes," but they can't separate it from all sorts of other things they're afraid it implies -- things they haven't stopped to examine. In this case, those things aren't "Should black people be allowed to steal my car," any more than they are "Should Israel have bombed Beirut..." They are, fundamentally, questions of: "Have I reeeeally thought about this as much as I want to think I have?" "What is keeping me from a simple answer here?" "What is it about this question that makes me angry?" "What do I fear admitting?")

you have NOooo idea.........

It isn't easy to answer BECAUSE of what is currently taking place!


If you've read all my posts you'll see that I think one has an inherent right to "defend oneself" - BUT - I think that you canNOT separate out what is going on at this point in time at this place in time with such a simplistic - and LOADED - "poll question".

It doesn't seemed to be designed properly, IMHO.

If you had've asked that same question two months ago - you'd've probably received an overwhelming "yes" - and little in the way of discussion (except from the diehard I/P people).

I'm just not much of a "it's only black-and-white" issue person. I see myriad shades of grey in just about everything.

I think our party has become cowered by Neo-Con usurping everything from "supporting the troops" to the flag and "patriotism" to a narrow definition of "strength" itself.

Stick to your guns on black and white: We are strong, we are patriotic, we believe in self-defense, we believe in justice, etc...

THEN argue the gray. "Strength" is this, not that; "Patriotism" is this, not that; "Self-defense" is this, not that.

Don't relinquish our stake in strong convictions because THEY are trying to redefine all the terms.

heck - IMO you can't even use "black" and "white" without further clarification....

:rofl:

Don't back down from "black and white."

THEN clarify with grey.

:P

There are many shades of BLACK and different shades of WHITE - I ain't even talking 'bout GREY at this point!

And that's just if you're talking about COLORS. 'cause there ARE other definitions for said words . . .

Admit it, Sparkly - you ARE an anti-semantist!!


:rofl:

what you are sincerely trying to find out with this thread. I find your points worthwhile and worth trying to see. Especially the one above.

I would still answer that the US has a right to defend itself.

Bush's invasion of Iraq was illegal/immoral precisely because it didn't involve defending the US. Bush lied to the American people to make us think Iraq posed an imminent threat. In the wake of 9/11, too many Americans were willing to believe him. But there was no such threat. It really is as simple as that.

(if you've been following the whole thread - then you'll understand this: :rofl:)

FWIW, this is my take on the situation: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2731444&mesg_id=2732282

Regardless of the basis of the Israeli state, it is a DE FACTO if not a de jure state. Thus the right cannot be questioned.

Nevertheless, the question - made precisely at this point in time - is pregnant with mischief. It is, because of the current context, interpreted as a "trick question".

Even your final explanation; "I find all of that very interesting. Is it that hard to say something as simple as yes, Israel has a right to defend itself? Is that being manipulated into supporting BushCo?" raises eyebrows.

My eyebrows raised at the difficulty people have with answering this simple question.

It does seem that even a simple "yes" is now fraught with complicated ambiguity... (Similar to the initial uproar when the DNC announced there'd be lots of flag-waving at the 2004 convention, showing a new reluctance toward flags as symbolic of BushCo.)

It's a simple question -- and it's amazing how difficult that seems to be.

"My eyebrows raised at the difficulty people have with answering this simple question."

If I polled "do Muslims have anything to blame the US for" on 9/12, what would your reponse be?

Why?

... about the motives of such a post on such a date?

Honestly?

we can't even answer a basic direct question without hemming and hawing about motives and tricks and manipulations, etc.?

If we can't take a stand enough to say simple things like (from this thread):

"It's wrong to kill babies."
"Muslims have things to blame the US for."
"Israel has a right to defend itself."

Then what CAN we take a stand on?

You can follow any of these statements with the word "but" or have a lengthy discussion on them, but for cryin' out loud, there should be some basic fundamental things we shouldn't be afraid to say.

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

It's not ambigious for the Secretary General of the United Nations.

"I have already condemned Hezbollah's attacks on Israel and acknowledged Israel's right to defend itself under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. I do so again today."

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/20/AR2006072000912.html?nav=rss_world

There is nothing complicated about the question. If one says that Israel does not have the right to defend oneself then one does not recognize Israel as a nation.

Now if one wants to ask "Do you characterize the action taken in Lebanon as Israel defending itself?" then there would certainly be a range of opinions on what is a much more complex question.

Have there been jewish suicide bombers in Gaza? Did the
Israeli's always attack in retribution? Does the ruling
Hamas party recognize Israel's right to exist? When will
they modify their charter to reflect recognition?

So many good questions.....no simple answers.

Israel has occupied the Palestinians lands, driven them from their home, murdered far more Palestinian civilians than the Palestinians have murdered Israelis, destroyed their livelihoods, humiliated them, impoverished them.

There is a very, very simple answer to that question; it's "yes".

The Palestinian suicide bombers who murder innocent civilians
in Israel or Israel for lashing out in retribution?

Who first lobs rockets into civilian areas of Israel or Isreal
lashing out by invading Lebanon?

Do you really believe if all the suicide bombers stopped, and
Israel was not subject to rocket attacks, that Israel would send
tanks and airplanes and missiles to attack the Palestinians or
Hezbollah?

The Palestinians & Hezbollah initiate the attacks, and then cry foul
when Israel slaps them back hard.

However, they would continue to occupy, oppress and harrass the Palestinians, and to ensure that no viable Palestinian state was ever established; the "security wall" would stay up; Palestinian freedom of movement would be restricted, more Palestinian land would be siezed, and so forth.

The problem is, I think, that a great many Israelis and their supporters no longer think of their neighbours as fully human, and as such, they don't care about inflicting suffering on them - it may be regrettable, but it's not comparable with harming "real people". Linked to this is the belief that if they hurt the arabs enough - if you kill enough of a pack of animals, they will learn that coming near you is a bad idea and avoid you. Unfortunately, unlike animals, humans bear grudges - the higher the percentage of the population around Israel who have had thier homes destroyed, their relatives killed, been humiliated, etc, by Israel, the harder it will be to establish any form of peace, and that number is getting higher by the day, *and too many of Israel's supporters don't care*.

Now let's go back to pre-1967. Israel was smaller than it is today.
There were no Israeli tanks and bombs invading any neighbors. Then
the Arab coalition decided to attack Israel in an attempt to wipe
it off the map. Well, we all know what happened. The Israeli's beat
the living daylight of the attackers and captured huge territories
including Sinai which is bigger than pre-1967 Israel itself.

Under president Carter's intervention, Egypt and Israel reached a
peace agreement and Egypt regained Sinai. Government of Egypt has
not sponsered any terrorism against Israel since then.

That has not been the case with the Syrians and Palestinians. They
keep sending suicide bombers and Hezbullah keeps firing rockets into
random areas of civilian population. What would you do sir, if you were
the goivernment of Israel? Turn other cheek?

In 1967, ISRAEL invaded Syria, Egypt and the occupied territories NOT the other way around. I dont know why this keeps being portrayed as if ISRAEL was invaded in 67. Egypt was conducting some provacative military manuevers, at least three high ranking Israeli military officials did not believe they constituted a threat of invasion. There had been some shelling from Syria in retaliation for an Israeli incursion into Syria to attack an agricultrual compound but the bottom line is ISRAEL invaded their nieghbors they were NOT INVADED.

All joking aside, I can't recall reading anywhere in the main
stream media that Israel STARTED the 1967 war. So don't blame me,
blame the MSM for false info.

To expect you will get the whole and true story from the MSM. I read books about political issues. Chomsky has several on this issue which I found Fateful Triangle to be the best. This information IS out there though there was provocation going both ways between Israel and Syria as I said. Bottom line though and this is NOT in dispute. Israel invaded Egypt Syria, and Jordan, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/egypt/egypt46.html

On the morning of June 5, Israel launched a full-scale attack on Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. In three hours, at least 300 of Egypt's 430 combat aircraft were destroyed, many on the ground as the pilots did not have time to take off. Israeli ground forces started a lightning strike into Sinai and by June 8 had reached the Suez Canal (see The June 1967 War , ch. 5). On that day, both sides accepted a UN Security Council call for a cease-fire. By June 11, the Arab defeat was total; Israel now held all of historic Palestine, including the Old City of Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, as well as Sinai and part of the Golan Heights of Syria.

http://www.cet.edu/earthinfo/meast/israel/IPtopic4.html

On 6/5/67, the Israeli air force launched a surprise attack and decimated the Egyptian air force on the ground. It then accomplished similar results against the Syrian and Jordanian air forces. With unchallenged mastery of the air, Israeli ground units then struck, capturing the Gaza Strip from Egypt on the 6th and the Sinai Peninsula on the 8th. The West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem) was captured on June 7th from Jordan. Despite a UN sponsored truce, Israel continued to attack Syria until the Golan Heights were taken on June 10th. At that point a cease-fire was accepted.

Then I would prepare a package of unilateral withdrawal to the green line, joint sovereignty over Jerusalem, dismantelement of the "security wall", and some combination of reparations to the displaced and the replacement of the right of "return" with a right for the displaced to return.

Crucially, all this would have to be done in one swoop. I have no illusions about the fact that there are some arabs who would like to continue violence against Israel even after that; if it were to come in dribs and drabs then there I think violence would continue to try and extract "further concessions"; if there was only one batch of concessions and then no more then this would be less of an issue.

I would take the only possible approach to attacking those elements who wanted to continue violence against Israel, which would be to get those arabs who wanted peace to disarm them. I would endeavour to draw a very clear line in the sand between those I was at peace with and those I wasn't, and to make it clear that any infractions from those on the former side would involve them being disqualified, and I would endeavour to persuade Europe to do as much as possible to support those governments that agreed to peace and to enable them to crack down on the others.

It wouldn't be nearly perfect - there would still be occasional violence against Israel for the best part of a generation, I suspect - but it would make Israel far safer than any other approach.

Hamas and Hezbullah declared that Israel (in some form) had
the right to exist. So long as their charter calls for
destruction of the zionist state, I am pessimistic about
chances for peace. The suffering on both sides will go on
for a long time.

If Hamas and Hezbullah were to do that, then unless considerable outside pressure was brought to bear on it I think that Israel's response would be to say "thanks very much", and continue to occupy most of Palestine. Israel is not going to make any more concessions than it is forced to, I suspect - look at the charter of the Likud party, which I suspect will remain a dominant force in Israeli politics once the new gloss has worn off Kadima, and look at the attitude and remarks of Ariel Sharon, the man who founded the current governing party.

The only possible chance for peace in the middle east is the election of a "hardline" pro-peace Labour government ready to make serious concessions, and I can't see that happening any time soon.

Without suicide bombers. They invaded Israel in 1982 and there hadnt been a cross border incident in about a year. How about a different question. Do you believe that if Israel stopped stealing Palestinian land and oppressing Palestinians. Going back to the Green line and allowing a Palestinian state, no more attacks on them with rockets or kidnappings of Palestinians that the suicide bombings would continue? The problem with even discussing this situation is there are no white hats in the conflict. Both sides commit terrorism against civilians, and both sides act with disregard for the others humanity.

Baruch Goldstien?

Whether Israel (or the Palestinians, or the Lebanese for that matter) has the right to DEFEND itself is not in question. It's whether Israel's actions can be characterized as truly defensive that counts. In this situation, there seems to be a very clear aggressor. And it's not Hizbollah.

I think it may be in question, consciously or unconsciously, underlying discussions concerning Israel. (Not just in this case, but in others as well.)

Obviously, they are viewed by many as an illegitimate nation, occupying land that doesn't belong to them, western occupiers controlled by the US and Britain.

Obviously, not everything they've done has been fair or right.

But I wondered whether we even all agreed that they have a right to defend themselves, or whether people have even really asked themselves that question. Is there a knee-jerk response when Israel retaliates with a subtext that they should not use force (whether because they shouldn't be there in the first place, deserve the attacks they receive, should be able to talk out all conflicts diplomatically, or other)?

I said nothing praising their actions in Lebanon. Whether they are acting offensively or defensively is another debate.

I asked, "Does Israel have a right to defend itself?"

"right" to drink?

Of course they do. But ask his wife and kids whether they agree with that statement. (Especially if he's the type to come home and beat the crap out of them and spend all of his paycheck on booze.)

That's all I was asking, on this topic.

There's a "but" -- of course there is. "Yes" isn't the end of the story, but it's a start at discussing that story...

And evidently, it's not as simple as it seems -- we are NOT all on the same page on this fundamental question.

"an eye for an eye" become "an eye for you and your kids' lives"?

itself from a minority faction within that country?

The first one is more fundamental: Does Israel have a right to defend itself?

If yes, we can go on do debate what "defending itself" means.

If no, we can have a debate about why it doesn't have that right.

If the question makes people too squeamish, angry, defensive, or offensive to answer it, we can debate why that is.

As the 86% to 14% results of your question reveal, there is no real debate whether Israel can or cannot defend itself. The discussion above confirms that the 14% opposition to your question is completely or almost completely the result of people objecting to your biased question. Of course, Israel has the same right to defend itself as the US has a right to defend itself, or Palestine has a right to defend itself, or Lebanon has a right to defend itself, or 1970s era Northern Ireland had a right to defend itself, or 1930s era Germany had a right to defend itself -- but the right to defend itself is beside the point.

The salient question is whether or not Israel has abused its right to defend itself by (1) its disproportionately violent response, (2) its geographically imprecise response (bombing civilian assets of Lebanon which are not directly tied to Hezbollah), and (3) the transparent fact that it has planned to take the southern area of Lebanon as a buffer zone long before the current strife and that Israel is transparently using the current strife as a manufactured excuse to justify its incursion into southern Lebanon to create a buffer zone. My sympathy for Israel is sorely tested by this action, and it is folly to pretend that this is either a proportionate response or a spontaneous and non-premeditated/pre-orchestrated response or a humane response. Israel's actions in Lebanon are a human rights abomination.

I've explained it here several times.

It's a bias that seems to underlie other debates on this -- and other -- actions, issues, conflicts, etc.

The fact that 14-15% of people here say Israel has NO right to defend itself may mean people were "objecting" or not -- I've twice asked them to explain, but none did.

The right to defend itself IS a salient point when the country is (to whatever extent) resented here and in their own region, seen as western occupiers of land they don't have legitimate claim to, attacked since their inception as interlopers, and associated with the Middle East aggression of the US and Great Britain.

I think it's important to get that question off the table to have a fair debate about ANYthing concerning Israel, because it crops up automatically in any discussion. Are they justified in defending themselves when attacked? I think there's a quick assumption that if they use military force, they're "escalating violence," no matter what.

I made a parallel in a post upthread comparing it to prejudices against black US citizens. "Do blacks deserve equal rights?" is a question that would make some people uncomfortable, but it has to be addressed before anything else can be discussed without that subtext... Same with gays, same with women. ("Yes, BUT" is the uncomfortable answer.)

I'm not discussing YOUR "salient question" here -- I'm getting this one off the table. Does Israel have a right to defend itself? PERIOD.

From there, if it's "yes," we can discuss this action.

If "no," we can discuss that.

It's just a "yes" or "no" question, and the apparent ambiguity is amazing.

biased framing of the issue. Every democracy has a right to defend itself; your poll question falsely frames the Israel debate along these lines, and this is not the basis on which anyone disputes Israel's actions (and you know better whether you admit it or not).

there's an obvious answer: YES.

And the post should have fallen from there.

And YOU know better, if you read the rest of this thread, than to make baseless accusations.

than debate about any democracy's right to defend itself? Shall we tally the posts?

What if I posted the question: "Does the US have a right to defend itself?"

(I wish I had, but I didn't realize how far gone we were.)

How about: "Do Women deserve equal rights?"

Or: "Do Minorities deserve equal rights?"

What other obvious questions are there that contain a big "BUT" that makes them hard to grapple with... Oh yes, from this thread: "Is it wrong to kill babies?"

How about, "Does life matter?"

Maybe, "Do we really need a military?"

Or perhaps, "Is Christianity Bad?"

You'd think the answers would be simple... But all SORTS of motives, suspicions, and other freaking seems to occur.

based on facts not in evidence. I for one have NO resentment for Israel. I DO think they should comply with international law like everyone else. For instance I think they should comply with the fourth Geneva convention which DENIES occupiers any right to colonize or settle occupied territory.

and see if it can be answered easily. Defending oneself is one thing but just claiming you need to defend yourself is another. Then there's the question of proportionality of the defense. I don't think you can answer your Israeli self-defense poll with a simple yes or no.

My answer is a clear, unequivocal "YES."

"Are BushCo defending America" is another question, to which my answer is a clear, unequivocal "NO."

Don't let the second question compromise your answer to the first one. They are two separate questions. That's my point.

Unbelievable!!!

...while they have the right to defend themselves, the poll looks loaded.

and tell us why you don't believe Israel has a right to defend itself.

NT.

I think the point that you're trying to make to others in this thread is that the empirical FACT of whether or not they ARE defending themselves IN their actions is an entirely different question than the one you've posed.

I assume that you are trying to identify and hear from those who would say that Israel simply does not have the right to defend itself- in theory- because some people debate the issue seemingly from that point of view.

What you're seeing is the backlash from asking a question with an answer that is both obviously correct and unacceptable to a few people. Oh, the indignity. LOL

So, then they tell you what you're REALLY asking them, since it can't be that a principle such as the one being addressed has even come into question, by anyone. They simply must be being manipulated. No, they say, you're asking if Israel IS defending itself- properly-, not whether they have a right to, theoretically, because you couldn't be so rude as to ask such a SIMPLE question.

The question is disingenuous.

I'll define "defend" for you, since you didn't; it will guarantee an honest response, at least from me.

To "defend" is to keep safe from attack. For me, that means that the defender blocks an attack, or restrains an attacker. This is an action that is taken when the attack occurs, not before. I don't believe there is such a thing as "preemptive defense."

Defense is also not anger, punishment, or revenge.

So, does Israel have the right to defend itself? Sure. Everyone has the right to block an attack or restrain an attacker who is in the act of attacking.

I don't believe that definition includes attacking anyone on their home ground.

and damn statistics.

Of course israel has a right to defend herself but in the present context where does that get us, other than the rhetoric of the israeli army and US administration

Who lobbed a shell at whom first? Is Hez. using civilian living quarters to set their attack platforms? Who has declared jihad on the Jews? Have the Jews declared a jihad on Islam? Just wanted to know....lots of speeches out there from the Islamists about the necessity to destroy Israel.

Arabs have no right to one inch of Eretz Israel or that the Palestinians have to learn to live like drugged roaches in a bottle. Who DID attack first, how far back do you want to go? To the family of eight killed on the beach by Isreli shelling? The near constant attacks on Gaza since they left? The murder of Folke Burnadette? If you really think this is a one sided conflict and Israel is ONLY the aggreived party having committed no provocation nor committed no acts of aggression you are not paying attention

Others have noted above the obvious corollaries to this.

to continue to fight this war in GDP?

They do not however have the right to do whatever they want and CALL it defense.

for 30 years America had this crazy notion that self-defense included launching thousands of nuclear missiles and nuclear armed bombers to wipe out all life on Earth. I wouldn't call that "self-defense."!

making others victims?

....let me ask a question....does Israel have a right to use disproportionate and unnecessary force resulting in many innocent civilian deaths?

....Israel will decide what force is proportionate and necessary. But I, in my support of Israel, will decide if that force was proportionate and necessary....

....if a life-long best friend of mine brutally murdered somebody, I'm afraid, at the very least, I would have to rethink our friendship....

Including Israel. Including Lebanon.

NT!