Updated to reflect the actual text of the ad.
A few days ago just about every major politician in Massachusetts signed onto an ad declaring support for Israel’s right to defend itself from unprovoked aggression.
As concerned citizens, we stand with the Jewish community and proudly raise our voices in solidarity with the people of Israel, a brave democracy that has yearned so long to live in peace.
We firmly support Israelâs right to defend her population against unprovoked acts of terror, including the missile attacks launched against Boston’s sister city, Haifa, which have killed and maimed innocent civilians.
We express our heartfelt concern for the safety of innocent people, Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese, who have been hurt most by the brutality of those terrorists who have brought a new level of violence to the area.
We call upon terrorist organizations and the regimes that support them to put an end to the terror. We call upon all who care about peace to join us in our support for Israel as she defends herself against the enemies of peace.
In and of itself, I’ve got no problem with most of it. As stated, I’d probably sign it myself. Self-defense against terrorist bombing? Heck yeah.
But is there nothing more to be said? What do we call this escalation if not a “new level of violence”? Can we really say that “Israel is not at war with Lebanon”, as the Jewish Community Relations Council’s Nancy Kaufman states, since Israel has indeed been bombing the hell out of the whole country, killing hundreds of civilians, displacing some half a million people? Can we just blankly excuse our adminstration’s reluctance to call for a cease-fire? Is what’s going on in Israel’s long-term interests for peace — much less the USA’s?
Any of our elected solons have any more to say on this?
It is sad to see how Bushism has so nearly completely polluted the discourse.
The post here appears to uncritically accept the Herald’s quote from this part of the ad (but why should anyone not fully accept the Herald’s version of journalism?). The Herald sliced off the end of this sentence: âWe express our heartfelt concern for the safety of innocent people, Israeli, Palestinian, and Lebanese.â
<
p>
The full, unedited sentence reads as follows (emphasis added): âWe express our heartfelt concern for the safety of innocent people, Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese, who have been hurt most by the brutality of those terrorists who have brought a new level of violence to the area.â
then they should sign up.
http://www.mahal2000.com/about/join.htm
Pat Buchanan and I support the same position. Which is: Hezbollah started this latest mess and escaluated it by firing the missles. OK, Israel has the right to go after them, kill them and neutralize them as an organization. But they don’t have the right to bomb civilian infrasture (sp)causing ruinous affects on the Lebanonese government and people.
<
p>
Israel needs the hearts ad minds of the millions of Lebanon’s citizens to achieve a long-term solution. Instead they are grooming another generation of hate and killings.
The issue of civilian casualties in Lebanon (and in the Palestinian territories) is a result of the cowardice and indecency of the Hezbollah (and Hamas/Palestinian Jihad/Al Aksa Martyrs/etc) terrorists. CNN’s news broadcast today even showed missiles being fired from the center of a Beirut apartment complex, followed by the arrival of Israeli fighter jets to close the launching pad down.
<
p>
Alan Dershowitz’s editorial, “The Arithmetic of Pain” in the 7/19 WSJ says:
<
p>
Hezbollah and Hamas, by contrast, deliberately operate military wings out of densely populated areas. They launch antipersonnel missiles with ball-bearing shrapnel, designed by Syria and Iran to maximize civilian casualties, and then hide from retaliation by living among civilians. If Israel decides not to go after them for fear of harming civilians, the terrorists win by continuing to have free rein in attacking civilians with rockets. If Israel does attack, and causes civilian casualties, the terrorists win a propaganda victory: The international community pounces on Israel for its “disproportionate” response. This chorus of condemnation actually encourages the terrorists to operate from civilian areas.
<
p>
As he states, the rules of war have indeed changed.
<
p>
Further, if the citizens and government of Lebanon (and the Palestinian territories) want to be free from civilian casualties, they must act on their own behalf to rid themselves of the terrorists and the terrorist infrastructure that is ultimately responsible for ALL of the civilian deaths, Arab and Israeli.
Hezbollah is plainly the instigator, and of course they plant themselves among civilians. It goes without saying that they are the worst of the worst.
<
p>
And yet, there are those civilian deaths. Do you think they should just continue ad infinitum? Do you think that Israel is hurting or helping Hezbollah, long term? For instance: Who’s one of the main groups taking care of the casualties and refugees? Hezbollah.
<
p>
And the other thing is that Hezbollah’s raison d’etre is not to defeat Israel. They may say so, but that’ll never happen, and they know it. Their raison d’etre is jihad, permanent and (for them) eternal. How does one avoid giving them what they want?
<
p>
So, yeah, I understand the catch-22. That being said, do you just say, “Well, the hell with the civilians. They’re going down, too” — and bombs away?
That’s putting it mildly. Considering the Hezbollah charter calls for the destruction of Israel, jihad is merely a collateral “benefit” and recruiting tools.
<
p>
Hezbollah is forcing civilians to stay put, despite IDF warnings to those civilians to leave. There are reports that fighting has broken out between Hezbollah and residents of southern Lebanon trying to evacuate. This is an international war crime. The Lebanonese surely must know Hezbollah is the cause of their suffering, despite the media’s conventional wisdom.
<
p>
If civilian casualites were the metric by which war is fought, the Japanese and Germans would have prevailed in WWII, not the Allies. Hezbollah doesn’t seem to mind sending Katusha rockets into exclusively civilian areas … also an international war crime.
<
p>
As the Israeli’s have known, and are now acting on, Hezbollah must be destroyed, or they will destroy Israel. Peace will only follow victory.
<
p>
Unfortunately, bombs away.
That’s my question. Does “bombs away” even work — much less is it morally defensible?
it seems to me that it will be very hard to destroy Hezbollah itself with bombs – obviously bombs make it harder for Hezbollah to operate in a particular place, but eventually they’ll relocate, just like Al Qaeda did when its base in Afghanistan was eliminated. What bombs might succeed in doing, though, is making it impossible for Syria and/or Iran to re-arm Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border once it runs out of its current supply of rockets.
Hezbollah, unlike Al Qaeda, needs to be in a particular place – namely, within striking distance of Israel – if it is going to continue operating the way it has been.
It appears Charlie cannot discern the difference between an Israeli air campaign targeted against Hezbollah offensive weapons, action which creates unintentional, regretable and unavoidable civilian deaths, and Hezbollah Katusha rockets, filled with ball bearings and fired at civilians with the exclusive intent to kill them.
<
p>
This is, by all international standards, a war crime. Where is the outrage? Charlie? Anybody on BMG?
<
p>
But if you cannot see the moral difference between these two acts, then the whole world is relative, and there is no right or wrong for you.
<
p>
What Israel is doing is morally defensible, despite civilian losses.
“Where’s the outrage” is smelly, smelly chum. I said what I think about Hezbollah above.
<
p>
That being said, dead kids are dead kids. I emphatically do assert that innocent Lebanese lives are worth every bit as much as Israeli lives, or indeed my own.
is defending Hezbollah’s terrorism, which any civilized person thinks is outrageous (to use your word). The debate is over Israel’s response. For what it’s worth, I tend to agree with you that Israel is justified in taking the steps it thinks necessary to render Hezbollah no longer a threat to its security (see my “cancer” comment downthread). But it’s hard not to be upset at the level of suffering caused to innocent Lebanese civilians.
<
p>
And yes, before you get started, I know Hezbollah is as much if not more to blame. Doesn’t make it easier to hear about what’s happening.
No one has said anything about a moral similarity between the acts of Israel and Hezbollah. In fact, one would assume that Charlie’s decision to focus this topic on Israel’s actions was probably based on the assumption that Hezbollah’s actions were unquestionably wrong, and therefore did not require discussion.
<
p>
I actually agree with you that the scale of Israel’s retaliation is appropriate. However, your rhetoric is not.
<
p>
The question (apparently not raised by anyone in the mainstream US media, especially not the Boston Herald) is: Who appointed Israel âguardianâ of Lebanese politics?!
that the failure of Lebanese politics has resulted in an active terrorist organization sitting on Israel’s northern border. That’s not a situation that any state should have to tolerate. And, sadly, it’s obvious by now that the Lebanese couldn’t or wouldn’t (most likely couldn’t) do anything about Hezbollah.
i.e., who asked Israel to be the guardian of Lebanese politics?
<
p>
Even IF what you say is true, the Israelis were not invited to inject themselves into the political situation in Lebanon.
<
p>
Moreover, however one may feel about Hezbollah, the fact is, aside from the stupid kidnapping thing, Israel has legitimated Hezbollah politically and there has been more bombing of Israeli targets since (if not before) the Gulf War.
<
p>
The saddest thing is it is so depressing to see the Israelis feeding themselves the same willfully self-deluded rhetoric the Bush administration so brilliantly initiated with their campaign for the invasion of Iraq.
I would think that one avoids giving them what they want by not giving it to them. It would take the Lebanese people and the Lebanese government (Christian and Sunnis and maybe even some Shiites) to say “Hey, we don’t want these terrorists and fanatics having control of our country, our fate, and our citizenry.” The US arrests suspected terrorists. Israel arrests suspected terrorists. France, England, Germany, India arrests suspected terrorists. Not a huge jump here… Lebanon is republic with a popularly elected parliament and government uniting an amalgam of religious and cultural groups. Show that you are actually independent of Syria and Hezbollah terrorists.
… and so therefore one wonders how Israel is going about strengthening the weak Lebanese state and Lebanese moderates, to go about the work you would have them do. I’d suggest they’re making that work immeasurably harder.
Hezbollah is like a cancer on the body of Lebanon. And, unfortunately, it has metastasized – it’s not like Afghanistan where it was relatively easy to take out training camps that were in plain view and were not particularly near civilian areas.
<
p>
The Lebanese government, like a human body suffering from metastatic cancer, is too weak to eliminate the invader on its own. The cancer, however, must be killed, or the patient will die. With cancer, the treatment is powerful drugs that in the short term often make the patient feel a lot sicker than he already did, but which hopefully in the long term make recovery possible.
<
p>
I very much hope that Israel is successful in eliminating Hezbollah as a military threat. I also very much hope that, hvaing done so, Israel will then spend a lot of money and other resources rebuilding the damage it has caused. The Israelis are not stupid – they know full well that a stable, strong Lebanese government that is able to care for its people is its best insurance policy against a resurgence of Hezbollah or the like.
<
p>
But none of that work can proceed with the cancer that is Hezbollah still in the picture, lobbing rockets into Israel whenever it likes.
<
p>
Very good thought. Such a plan would be a huge PR tool. I wonder if Israel plans to do this. If so, are they announcing it at all? I haven’t heard a thing.
is this analogy.
<
p>
<
p>
The more the ideologies become ludicris the most I tend to believe failure of Israel is not only inevitable but assured.
<
p>
Ideologues lied to themselves and to the world chanting that a preemptive strike on Iraq (to kill the cancer) would make the US safer and the US would reap the benefit of 20 dollar a barrel oil… that is the problem with ideologies not based in reality is that they are just “fables”… told to allay and quiet the consciousness of the masses.
<
p>
These are the SAME quiet, unthinking and unresponsive Democrats that said nothing in the run up to the Iraq war… like then as now… it seems the ENTIRE world could see beyond the phoney rhetoric except the US and Israel.
<
p>
Just as the US is failing in Iraq so will Israel fail in Lebanon because there is absolutely NO LINK between the ridiculous ideologies bantered about getting into these wars and the reality of the wars themselves.
<
p>
For the reality of your cancer analogy to work is that one must not only kill the body to rid itself of the cancer but also the parents and children of the “affected ones” and their neighbors, teachers, milkmen and bakers… and pray that no one else sees you doing it. The REALITY is that Israel just added at least two generations of GLOBAL Arabs and Muslims and a few others to their “Hated by” list… Israel isn’t curing anything… they just poisoned the body and set off and epidemic of hate for itself… there is no way in the next 100 years that they will ever be forgiven for this…even if they kill every man, woman and child in Lebanon.
When Israel withdrew from Lebanon some years ago, the goal was to strengthen Lebanese moderates, who suggested that with Israel gone, they would begin to stand up to Hezbollah. And over time, they did stand up to Syria, after Assad overplayed its hand with assassinations – Cedar Revolution.
<
p>
But there’s no been action on the southern front by the admittedly weak Lebanese state. Israel’s approach has been to try to coax the Lebanese gov’t into beginning to target Hezbollah…not looking for 0 to 60mph, more like 0 to 20 mph.
<
p>
Basically, their stated policy position was that “We’re sorry we have Hezbollah controlling our southern region, and staging terror attacks on you from there. But they’re stronger than we are.”
<
p>
Israel has essentially responded over time by saying “Listen, we know Hezbollah is no picnic, but you can’t expect to let them camp there and just attack us. Our best case is that you’ll have your military do SOMETHING. Try. We’ll help where we can. But if your position is simply “we’re weak, we’ll do nothing” then what else are we supposed to do but go after them, and since you allow them to embed themselves with civilians, how will we avoid collateral damage?”
<
p>
Obviously, Israel could have waited another 6 months. A year. Two years. But the Lebanese gov’t position (which includes Hezbollah, of course) was that “We don’t really plan on doing ANYTHING.” It wasn’t like the moderates were saying “Give us a little time, we’ll beef up, then deal with Hezbollah.”
<
p>
Is your argument that Lebanese moderates indeed would have stepped up?
<
p>
To bear in mind – unlike with intifada, where there was support for Arafat’s terror attacks – there’s sharp criticism of Hezbollah by Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
<
p>
Also, Israeli peacniks – who strongly opposed Israeli actions during intifada – are united in this action. Not just highly unusual – unprecedented, something like 99% support for this position.
<
p>
There are no good answers for terrorists who embed themselves in civilian populations of weak nations. There are three horrible choices: 1) drop flyers warning every civilian to leave, then attack; 2) or let the terrorists continue to attack, with small response wherever you can get a “clean shot”; or 3) capitulate.
<
p>
Israel tried #2 for a while. Now it’s #1. Of course that makes the work of building Lebanese moderates immeasurably harder – I’d concede the point.
All the other Lt. Governor & Sec. of Commonwealth candidates (all three of them…) signed on. Where are they?
about Bonifaz. Interesting about Murray, though. I emailed his campaign – we’ll see if we get a response. Reed Hillman didn’t sign either, though Kerry Healey and Mitt Romney did.
he would have signed if he had been asked. They are looking into why contact apparently wasn’t made between Murray and the people running the ad.
moved into a position of power in Lebanon. If you have any doubts about why the strategy of Israel is supported by the moderate Arab countries you should read this article.
The best friend that the Israeli people can have is one that will push their government to sit down with their enemies. What is most needed now is a US government that is willing to assume the mantle of dispassionate advocate for peace, and yet in the eyes of the entire world we are more and more identified with the state of Israel. The need for such an honest broker is greater than ever as the anger on both sides of the conflict escalates to such a level that there are very few moderates left to negotiate. They’ve all been marginalized, both from within their own camp as well as, cynically enough, by the leaders of the other camp.
What we have is a very dangerous national inertia in this country as evidenced by the number posters here who are stuck in the “they started it” mentality. What’s also counterproductive is the notion, too often expressed here, that there can be any resolution of the conflict without all parties sitting down at the table and being able to freely and openly discuss all their grievances.
Anyone who is truly committed to peace in the Middle East must insist on an immediate cease fire and push aggressively for comprehensive talks that include both regional disarmament (including nuclear) and a fairly drawn and viable Palestinian homeland. Absent in this signed statement is any mention of these critical points, and as such, it is a worthless and even contemptible document because it advocates for a continuation of the status quo. Where are our courageous leaders? Maybe Tim Murray and Mike Capuano, but maybe they just didn’t get around to signing it. For the others, it is truly unfortunate that they feel compelled to take sides in a region that is woefully lacking in imaginative and courageous thinking.
Here is the roll call of the vote.
War against civilians is as old as war. I think it is called Schrecklichkeit. All sides in this war use it. Israel just has the best US made weapons to wage it.
<
p>
No politician in Massachusetts, or anywhere else in the USA, is going to commit political suicide and mention any Israeli wrongs. Arab and Christian âtargetsâ don’t have any vote appeal here. They have no media power, no contributor block, no neighborhood presence.
<
p>
It is only a wise business discision to stay with Israel. No matter what it does, after all, the situation will be forgotten in two months.