I Just Don't Get It
I've been silent over the whole Israel-Hezbollah-Lebanon thing because I just can't understand it. And I hesitate to say anything without feeling like I have at least some grasp of the issue. After talking with friends and family, I'm starting to realize that most people don't seem to really understand it either. I understand there's a lot of history here, but I just don't get it. Is a war really going to break out over the capture of 2 soldiers?
I understand that Israel has the right to defend itself, but do they really have a right to attack another country because a terrorist organization captured 2 soldiers? It seems like a harsh reaction, especially given that there is quite a distinction between Hezbollah and Lebanon. I remember seeing some Dateline show a year or 2 ago about a bunch of tourists captured by terrorists in the Phillippines. Some of them were American. Yet I don't recall us attacking the Phillippines over this incident.
That being said, I want to make clear that I find it offensive what Hezbollah did. I just don't understand why Israel responded so severely and why they directed most of their response against Lebanon instead of Hezbollah. They spent the first few days knocking out Lebanon's infrastructure, including the airport. Not really sure how that helps fight Hezbollah or rescues their soldiers.
Regardless, Israel and Hezbollah should be condemned for all the suffering they have brought onto innocent civilians. It's really a shame that they are the ones who have to suffer.
As for the US response, I also don't get it. This insistence on not having a ceasefire confuses me. If they could help broker a ceasefire, the fighting would stop for awhile while both sides tried to find a solution. At least for a short time, the innocent civilians would be spared. Yet for some reason we are actually standing in the way of a ceasefire. Is this part of our refusal to negotiate with terrorists? Are we afraid of condemning Israel's pre-emptive doctrine and appearing hypocritical? Is the administration, at least the neo-cons, really so sinister as to want a war (even a world war) for either the mid-term elections or as rationale to invade Iran? I really don't have an opinion yet but am just confused. However, the rationale spit out by Rice makes no sense at all to me. The point of a ceasefire is to stop the fighting and try to broker a deal that will prevent more fighting. Instead, the US appears to be saying there shouldn't be a ceasefire until there is an agreement. Huh?
Ultimately I hope this situation gets resolved quickly with as few casualties as possible. I just wish I could understand this situation better so I didn't feel so afraid and think so negatively about the real motives of all the key players.
Tags: * politics * president * george bush * republican * democrat * conservative * liberal * congress * Israel * Hezbollah * Lebanon * terror * ceasefire * war * civilian casualties * Condoleeza Rice * Bush * America * Middle East * neocons * Iran * Dateline * Phillippines * confusion * fear
I understand that Israel has the right to defend itself, but do they really have a right to attack another country because a terrorist organization captured 2 soldiers? It seems like a harsh reaction, especially given that there is quite a distinction between Hezbollah and Lebanon. I remember seeing some Dateline show a year or 2 ago about a bunch of tourists captured by terrorists in the Phillippines. Some of them were American. Yet I don't recall us attacking the Phillippines over this incident.
That being said, I want to make clear that I find it offensive what Hezbollah did. I just don't understand why Israel responded so severely and why they directed most of their response against Lebanon instead of Hezbollah. They spent the first few days knocking out Lebanon's infrastructure, including the airport. Not really sure how that helps fight Hezbollah or rescues their soldiers.
Regardless, Israel and Hezbollah should be condemned for all the suffering they have brought onto innocent civilians. It's really a shame that they are the ones who have to suffer.
As for the US response, I also don't get it. This insistence on not having a ceasefire confuses me. If they could help broker a ceasefire, the fighting would stop for awhile while both sides tried to find a solution. At least for a short time, the innocent civilians would be spared. Yet for some reason we are actually standing in the way of a ceasefire. Is this part of our refusal to negotiate with terrorists? Are we afraid of condemning Israel's pre-emptive doctrine and appearing hypocritical? Is the administration, at least the neo-cons, really so sinister as to want a war (even a world war) for either the mid-term elections or as rationale to invade Iran? I really don't have an opinion yet but am just confused. However, the rationale spit out by Rice makes no sense at all to me. The point of a ceasefire is to stop the fighting and try to broker a deal that will prevent more fighting. Instead, the US appears to be saying there shouldn't be a ceasefire until there is an agreement. Huh?
Ultimately I hope this situation gets resolved quickly with as few casualties as possible. I just wish I could understand this situation better so I didn't feel so afraid and think so negatively about the real motives of all the key players.
Tags: * politics * president * george bush * republican * democrat * conservative * liberal * congress * Israel * Hezbollah * Lebanon * terror * ceasefire * war * civilian casualties * Condoleeza Rice * Bush * America * Middle East * neocons * Iran * Dateline * Phillippines * confusion * fear
posted by Tom G at 7/26/2006
3 Comments:
This is actually pretty typical of the Israelis. In Israel itself, in the Palestinian areas, if they hear RUMORSs that there MIGHT be a mediocre ranked terror suspect in an apartment building, they blow up the entire neighborhood. Perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised that actions like this might be taklen by people who imagine themselves an elect race 'chosen by God'. Religion sucks, man.
In America its popular to see the Israeli/Palestinian question as a murky issue, though to most of the world it's as black and white as apartheid South Africa was. It's the Palestinian's country, just as South Africa was the blacks' country.
Whether or not Jews ever actually inhabitated the land now called Israel in Biblical times is largely a matter of faith. But even if it were so (and it might well be) this is a very weak basis for laying claim to the land TODAY.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to throw the Jews out of Israel (I think), just as it would be wrong to have thrown all the whites out of South Africa. I think the only humane solution for Israel would be to have a South Africa style solution, where the Arabs and Jews share power in a new state which is neither nominally 'Arab' or 'Jewish'.
ooh- tom- you have opened up a hornet's nest. good luck. i'm not feeling particularly helpful today.
I agree with the solution proposed by Dumb Goy. I think there is a tendency in the USA to side with just Israel. I do not condone violence in any situation. I do not condone the actions of Hezbollah. Murder is wrong under any circumstance. One thing for sure is that a fair solution needs to be found. By fair, I mean solution that both Israel and Palestine can both agree.
Post a Comment
<< Main