Found an interesting article on Al Jazzera.net entitled 'The focus should be on Damascus',
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...D44499A644.htm
Yes
No
I trust you realize that "let the chips fall where they may" refers to hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilian dead.Originally Posted by SSG Rock
This situation is more akin to an individual being beaten by a bully, then, without bothering to take the time to talk to his parents or call the police, going over and burning his family's house down with the bully's parents and siblings inside. The mindset is that the family deserves whatever happens to them because they couldn't control the kid.Originally Posted by SSG Rock
No one is stating that Israel is unjustified in responding to Hizballah's provocation and to the threat it poses. It is the nature of the reponse that is under debate. My opinion is that the response is wholly disproportionate to the border clash and kidnapping. And now, after wreaking massive destruction across Lebanon and killing large numbers of civilians, they are no closer to destroying Hizballah than they were at the outset. The results of Operation Summer Rain look to be strategically counter-productive - much like the way Operation Grapes of Wrath turned out.
Israel is not fighting for its life. Yes, Hizballah poses a security threat on its northern border; but it is a long way from threatening the existence of the state of Israel. Again, much like Operation Grapes of Wrath, domestic Israeli politics plays no small role in the decision-making process of the Israeli government.Originally Posted by SSG Rock
Found an interesting article on Al Jazzera.net entitled 'The focus should be on Damascus',
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...D44499A644.htm
Israel has attacked Lebanon in part because under international law such a response is legally justified. We are hearing about " proportionality" only because Israel is so clearly within its rights to respond militarily to Hezbollah that the case for Israeli "aggression", which would be the normal diplomatic response, cannot pass the laugh test.
Morally, Israel would be far better off having attacked Syria, a primary backer of Hezbollah but this would be an act of aggression and illegal as Syria's aid is technically covert and more deniable. You can't deny Hezbollah's geographic location in quite the same fashion.
I'm not sure of the extent to which the IDF plans its operational strategy with the aid of lawyers but it sure looks like the consultation was considerable.
According to the U.S. State Department website, Israel and Syria are in a de jure state of war, so technically at least, Israel can attack Syria without fear of legally being considered an aggressor.
Bookmarks