They may begin to recognize that in intent, action and at heart, there are parties in this global conflict who are intensely interested in justice and rule of law, and those who are not.
And some may begin to understand that if they proclaim themselves to be the champions of a higher standard, they will be held to such a standard. You signed the treaties? You are held accountable. You don't get to ignore international law when it suits you. In crimes of war, deeds count more than words. When the deeds of powerful nations lower the standard, they put all of us at risk, not just their immediate victims.
So some may begin to recognize that their actions have more impact than most, and therefore call for higher scrutiny. It is not a claim to fairness or justice to be held to the same standards as Hezbollah. It is not something to be sought after or something to be proud of. The continued failure of some to understand this is baffling, and a source of great concern.
That said, I welcome the report by Amnesty International, as I welcome all rational assessment of facts.
When the deeds of powerful nations lower the standard, they put all of us at risk, not just their immediate victims.
Exactly what deeds of powerful nations are you referring to? Hezbollah launches a cross-boarder attack, and takes hostages. Israel responds with force. Is Hezbollah a nation? What exactly is/was it that they are fighting for? Why is it that Israel shouldn't strike back against them? If we are talking the larger international stage, it seems like a pretty large stretch to me to think that Iran said, 'go attack Israel' while the US said "you should destroy Hezbollah". Israel will surely act in it's own interests, without asking, as did Hezbollah, though why they started this is less clear to me.
It is not a claim to fairness or justice to be held to the same standards as Hezbollah.
Who claims this?
Hezbollah has no standards. They choose a civilian area to fire unguided rockets at their enemy hoping for the most collateral damage, while knowing if their enemy fires back, they will hit Hezbollah's own innocent countrymen. It's a win/win for them, seemingly. Israel looks bad regardless.
Seems to me that it is Hezbollah that is being held up to an international standard, or at least the provocations they did. Israel's response to that should hardly be surprising... IMHO anyway.
Exactly what deeds of powerful nations are you referring to?
Israeli war crimes, which are not limited to Lebanon, nor are they limited to the recent past; and if not for the diplomatic shield systematically erected by the US, they could be dragged to the international court by the back of the neck. Don't ask me for a list of their offences; I'm sure you can find them by yourself. Start with Sabra and Shatila, and go from there.
Why is it that Israel shouldn't strike back against them?
By this logic, why is it that Hezbollah should not strike back at Israel, who has occupied Southern Lebanon for more than a decade, violated the Lebanese border pretty much every day since they left in 2000, and sent commandos into Lebanese territory to kidnap Lebanese citizens? I'm not going to explain to you the virtues of a proportional response. There are others better equipped than I.
why they started this is less clear to me.
Who? Hezbollah? They started this for the same reason they have in the past. To bargain for prisonners.
Who claims this?
The editorialist who whines that the civil society holds Israel and other states to a higher standard than they do Hezbollah (because that's what his logically flawed argument comes down to). Well, I would sure as hell hope so. When your only defense is, "But Hezbollah's doing it, too!" I feel sorry for you.
But let Israel drop cluster bombs on civilians and set their own neighborhood on fire, rather than be courageous and smart and shore up the legitimate government of Lebanon. They'll reap what they sowed, eventually.
That's right, the offences are THEIRS... not ours. They do not call anyone up and say 'mother may I?' They are their own sovereign nation, and the decisions that they make are their own. They are not part of the US, and it certainly insults them to take away their right to their own determination by insisting that they are simply a tool of the US. I don't agree with what they did, but it isn't my call, because I am not an Isaeli. And still, where are the deeds of powerful nations?
By this logic, why is it that Hezbollah should not strike back at Israel
Hezbollah isn't a country, Lebanon IS, and there is the rub. If the Lebanese government were upset about the attack on their soil, would they have stood aside? Hezbollah is as big a problem for them as for Israel. As for proportionate response, Hezbollah didn't just kidnap 2 soldiers. Since they planned this out in a premeditated way, they launched a rack of Katyushas, and a number of Mortars as a diversion, while they ambushed the patrol, which was well inside Israel at the time. The ensuing counterstrike was again ambushed, due to the planning of Hezbollah which called the whole operation "Truthful Promise". Why would anyone assume that making a coordinated assult like that wouldn't cause a counterstrike is beyond me. When you kill 3 soldiers to take another 2 hostage, and kill another 5 who come in support, you've killed 8 so you can get 2 to use as a bargaining chip to get other prisoners back. In an ambush you planned. This WASN'T a boarder skirmish, where in the fighting 2 guys were captured. Hezbollah killed a patrol to get a bargaining chip? Perhaps they didn't think the retaliation would be that bad because, after all, the Israelis must be soft.
We can surely hold Israel to a higher standard, because Hezbollah are... what exactly? A group of common terrorist criminals? With 13000 rockets? 4000 of which they fired unguided into Israel? They aren't sepratists, or freedom fighters, or any of those sorts of things... Maybe Warlords fits best. They ruled southern Lebanon as a feifdom, and made it an armed camp. They used the civilian population as shields, knowing those populations would be killed. They didn't recognize the regular government of Lebanon in their area, and did what they wanted.
and somehow they are the anti-heros, and Israel is bad because it didn't control it's temper... certainly, it isn't as easy as all that, but the problem remains that everyone berates Israel because they know where to find them, but Hezbollah, is getting pretty much a free pass, because no-one knows where they are.
I'm not sure I'd go about trumpeting that article, in particular, as a paragon of astuteness. For one thing, it's got a major logical fallacy in its lede:
In utter defiance of the predominant American left, European and United Nations view that Israel engaged in gross war crimes against civilians and freedom fighters in Lebanon, Amnesty International has announced that in its opinion, Hezbollah is guilty of war crimes.
In utter defiance of logic, Jules Crittenden it is impossible to yell at your son for hitting his sister, and then turn around and yell at your daughter for hitting her brother. This is a false dichotomy, and a classic of shitty argumentation tactics, and I expect better out of somebody whose whole job is to argue. I mean, this is the Herald, which prides itself on its OTT unthoughtfulness, but sheesh.
Amnesty International calls shooting rockets at random civilian targets a crime? Score one for logic and the ability to call a spade a spade. But I'm not sure where the sneering and the shitty logic are useful to the conversation, and by linking to that article, rather than one that's more polite and well-reasoned, is kind of unflattering.
i wasn't "trumpeting" the article, i simply found it intriguing, which is why my only comment was "well whaddya know."
But I'm not sure where the sneering and the shitty logic are useful to the conversation, and by linking to that article, rather than one that's more polite and well-reasoned, is kind of unflattering.
you're certainly welcome not to read my lj. i link to what interests me because it is *my* lj. and Amnesty International doing a complete 180 on its position on Hezbollah is big news - whether anyone agrees with their decision, or the writer's position, or not. it's infinitely more "unflattering", imho, to project your distate with the article onto me as a person.
FWIW, linking to an article that's somewhat rude, with a link that says "well, whaddya know" -- the message you're giving off is that you endorse the thing you're linking to. "Whaddya know" sounds like sarcastic golf claps to me -- like "oh finally someone has seen the light." If that's not how you meant that phrase to come across, then I think you're not being as clear as you might wish to be.
By linking to something, especially without providing discussion or your own thoughts in detail, you are implying that link speaks for you. By linking to something rude (and as noted, fallacious) without providing your own thoughts, you are implying that you endorse rudeness (and weak logic). I don't think you do; anyway I hope you don't; and I'm trying to provide advice as to how best to get your message across in a way that makes you look good rather than bad.
And, I mean, I know I'm welcome not to read your LJ. But, wouldn't it be better if we did read each other's LJs, and strove to be polite and community-minded? Better than each stalking to her own corner of the internet and swearing never to speak again. I'm a grownup; I can take disagreement and displeasure; but I prefer to engage people who disagree with me on a polite and thoughtful level. Which is what my post was intended to be.
By linking to something, especially without providing discussion or your own thoughts in detail, you are implying that link speaks for you.
you're welcome to interpret it that way.
I'm a grownup; I can take disagreement and displeasure; but I prefer to engage people who disagree with me on a polite and thoughtful level. Which is what my post was intended to be.
and my post was intended simply to point out something that i found interesting and newsworthy. but then someone else took it in a manner other than i intended. don't ya hate it when that happens?
Didn't it start (THIS time) over 2 Israeli soldiers that were kidnapped? I though I read that someone in Hezbollah said if they'd known how Israel was going to react, they wouldn't have kidnapped the 2 soldiers.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sforzinda
no subject
Date: 2006-09-15 08:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-15 09:38 am (UTC)And some may begin to understand that if they proclaim themselves to be the champions of a higher standard, they will be held to such a standard. You signed the treaties? You are held accountable. You don't get to ignore international law when it suits you. In crimes of war, deeds count more than words. When the deeds of powerful nations lower the standard, they put all of us at risk, not just their immediate victims.
So some may begin to recognize that their actions have more impact than most, and therefore call for higher scrutiny. It is not a claim to fairness or justice to be held to the same standards as Hezbollah. It is not something to be sought after or something to be proud of. The continued failure of some to understand this is baffling, and a source of great concern.
That said, I welcome the report by Amnesty International, as I welcome all rational assessment of facts.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-15 04:36 pm (UTC)Exactly what deeds of powerful nations are you referring to? Hezbollah launches a cross-boarder attack, and takes hostages. Israel responds with force. Is Hezbollah a nation? What exactly is/was it that they are fighting for? Why is it that Israel shouldn't strike back against them? If we are talking the larger international stage, it seems like a pretty large stretch to me to think that Iran said, 'go attack Israel' while the US said "you should destroy Hezbollah". Israel will surely act in it's own interests, without asking, as did Hezbollah, though why they started this is less clear to me.
Who claims this?
Hezbollah has no standards. They choose a civilian area to fire unguided rockets at their enemy hoping for the most collateral damage, while knowing if their enemy fires back, they will hit Hezbollah's own innocent countrymen. It's a win/win for them, seemingly. Israel looks bad regardless.
Seems to me that it is Hezbollah that is being held up to an international standard, or at least the provocations they did. Israel's response to that should hardly be surprising... IMHO anyway.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-15 06:32 pm (UTC)Israeli war crimes, which are not limited to Lebanon, nor are they limited to the recent past; and if not for the diplomatic shield systematically erected by the US, they could be dragged to the international court by the back of the neck. Don't ask me for a list of their offences; I'm sure you can find them by yourself. Start with Sabra and Shatila, and go from there.
Why is it that Israel shouldn't strike back against them?
By this logic, why is it that Hezbollah should not strike back at Israel, who has occupied Southern Lebanon for more than a decade, violated the Lebanese border pretty much every day since they left in 2000, and sent commandos into Lebanese territory to kidnap Lebanese citizens? I'm not going to explain to you the virtues of a proportional response. There are others better equipped than I.
why they started this is less clear to me.
Who? Hezbollah? They started this for the same reason they have in the past. To bargain for prisonners.
Who claims this?
The editorialist who whines that the civil society holds Israel and other states to a higher standard than they do Hezbollah (because that's what his logically flawed argument comes down to). Well, I would sure as hell hope so. When your only defense is, "But Hezbollah's doing it, too!" I feel sorry for you.
But let Israel drop cluster bombs on civilians and set their own neighborhood on fire, rather than be courageous and smart and shore up the legitimate government of Lebanon. They'll reap what they sowed, eventually.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-15 11:04 pm (UTC)That's right, the offences are THEIRS... not ours. They do not call anyone up and say 'mother may I?' They are their own sovereign nation, and the decisions that they make are their own. They are not part of the US, and it certainly insults them to take away their right to their own determination by insisting that they are simply a tool of the US. I don't agree with what they did, but it isn't my call, because I am not an Isaeli. And still, where are the deeds of powerful nations?
Hezbollah isn't a country, Lebanon IS, and there is the rub. If the Lebanese government were upset about the attack on their soil, would they have stood aside? Hezbollah is as big a problem for them as for Israel. As for proportionate response, Hezbollah didn't just kidnap 2 soldiers. Since they planned this out in a premeditated way, they launched a rack of Katyushas, and a number of Mortars as a diversion, while they ambushed the patrol, which was well inside Israel at the time. The ensuing counterstrike was again ambushed, due to the planning of Hezbollah which called the whole operation "Truthful Promise". Why would anyone assume that making a coordinated assult like that wouldn't cause a counterstrike is beyond me. When you kill 3 soldiers to take another 2 hostage, and kill another 5 who come in support, you've killed 8 so you can get 2 to use as a bargaining chip to get other prisoners back. In an ambush you planned. This WASN'T a boarder skirmish, where in the fighting 2 guys were captured. Hezbollah killed a patrol to get a bargaining chip? Perhaps they didn't think the retaliation would be that bad because, after all, the Israelis must be soft.
We can surely hold Israel to a higher standard, because Hezbollah are... what exactly? A group of common terrorist criminals? With 13000 rockets? 4000 of which they fired unguided into Israel? They aren't sepratists, or freedom fighters, or any of those sorts of things... Maybe Warlords fits best. They ruled southern Lebanon as a feifdom, and made it an armed camp. They used the civilian population as shields, knowing those populations would be killed. They didn't recognize the regular government of Lebanon in their area, and did what they wanted.
and somehow they are the anti-heros, and Israel is bad because it didn't control it's temper... certainly, it isn't as easy as all that, but the problem remains that everyone berates Israel because they know where to find them, but Hezbollah, is getting pretty much a free pass, because no-one knows where they are.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-15 12:37 pm (UTC)In utter defiance of the predominant American left, European and United Nations view that Israel engaged in gross war crimes against civilians and freedom fighters in Lebanon, Amnesty International has announced that in its opinion, Hezbollah is guilty of war crimes.
In utter defiance of logic, Jules Crittenden it is impossible to yell at your son for hitting his sister, and then turn around and yell at your daughter for hitting her brother. This is a false dichotomy, and a classic of shitty argumentation tactics, and I expect better out of somebody whose whole job is to argue. I mean, this is the Herald, which prides itself on its OTT unthoughtfulness, but sheesh.
Amnesty International calls shooting rockets at random civilian targets a crime? Score one for logic and the ability to call a spade a spade. But I'm not sure where the sneering and the shitty logic are useful to the conversation, and by linking to that article, rather than one that's more polite and well-reasoned, is kind of unflattering.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-16 03:55 am (UTC)But I'm not sure where the sneering and the shitty logic are useful to the conversation, and by linking to that article, rather than one that's more polite and well-reasoned, is kind of unflattering.
you're certainly welcome not to read my lj. i link to what interests me because it is *my* lj. and Amnesty International doing a complete 180 on its position on Hezbollah is big news - whether anyone agrees with their decision, or the writer's position, or not. it's infinitely more "unflattering", imho, to project your distate with the article onto me as a person.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-16 06:30 pm (UTC)By linking to something, especially without providing discussion or your own thoughts in detail, you are implying that link speaks for you. By linking to something rude (and as noted, fallacious) without providing your own thoughts, you are implying that you endorse rudeness (and weak logic). I don't think you do; anyway I hope you don't; and I'm trying to provide advice as to how best to get your message across in a way that makes you look good rather than bad.
And, I mean, I know I'm welcome not to read your LJ. But, wouldn't it be better if we did read each other's LJs, and strove to be polite and community-minded? Better than each stalking to her own corner of the internet and swearing never to speak again. I'm a grownup; I can take disagreement and displeasure; but I prefer to engage people who disagree with me on a polite and thoughtful level. Which is what my post was intended to be.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-16 07:01 pm (UTC)you're welcome to interpret it that way.
I'm a grownup; I can take disagreement and displeasure; but I prefer to engage people who disagree with me on a polite and thoughtful level. Which is what my post was intended to be.
and my post was intended simply to point out something that i found interesting and newsworthy. but then someone else took it in a manner other than i intended. don't ya hate it when that happens?
no subject
Date: 2006-09-15 06:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-16 03:57 am (UTC)