Any full-fledged apologists for these Israeli actions?

[GreatWhiteHype2]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5178774.stm

You know, if I didn't know any better, I'd think Bush has bought into the Bible-beating fundie line here:

"Uh, uh...we gots to support Israel no matter what!...cause....cause, they's God's chosen people, and if we don't support them, we're supportin' the devil! So which side you want? God's side, or....or, the devil!?"

The church has the right to address the actions of the modern secular state of Israel just as much as it does the actions of the modern secular state of Djibouti. This Israeli response is disproportionate to the abduction of its soldiers, and the people of Lebanon are paying with their lives for Hezbollah's stupid move. Hezbollah initiated, and thus shares part of the blame, but true to their past, the Israeli government has responded to a pea-shooter with an atom bomb. And the U.S. isn't holding them accountable. This is despicable action.

[neocon_voter]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5178774.stm

You know, if I didn't know any better, I'd think Bush has bought into the Bible-beating fundie line here:

"Uh, uh...we gots to support Israel no matter what!...cause....cause, they's God's chosen people, and if we don't support them, we're supportin' the devil! So which side you want? God's side, or....or, the devil!?"

The church has the right to address the actions of the modern secular state of Israel just as much as it does the actions of the modern secular state of Djibouti. This Israeli response is disproportionate to the abduction of its soldiers, and the people of Lebanon are paying with their lives for Hezbollah's stupid move. Hezbollah initiated, and thus shares part of the blame, but true to their past, the Israeli government has responded to a pea-shooter with an atom bomb. And the U.S. isn't holding them accountable. This is despicable action.

What would Sun Tzu do.

The Art of War by Sun Tzu, Part II Waging War

II Waging War
1. Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.
2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.
3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.
4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
7. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.
8. The skillful soldier does not raise a second levy, neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice.
9. Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs.
10. Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished.
11. On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people's substance to be drained away.
12. When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions.
13,14. With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their income will be dissipated; while government expenses for broken chariots, worn-out horses, breast-plates and helmets, bows and arrows, spears and shields, protective mantles, draught-oxen and heavy wagons, will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue.
15. Hence a wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy's provisions is equivalent to twenty of one's own, and likewise a single picul of his provender is equivalent to twenty from one's own store.
16. Now in order to kill the enemy, our men must be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards.
17. Therefore in chariot fighting, when ten or more chariots have been taken, those should be rewarded who took the first. Our own flags should be substituted for those of the enemy, and the chariots mingled and used in conjunction with ours. The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and kept.
18. This is called, using the conquered foe to augment one's own strength.
19. In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
20. Thus it may be known that the leader of armies is the arbiter of the people's fate, the man on whom it depends whether the nation shall be in peace or in peril.

© source where applicable

Also in Part IV Tactical Dispositions: #19 A victorious army opposed to a routed one, is as a pound's weight placed in the scale against a single grain.

Neocon_Voter

for further info on how to win
http://www.online-literature.com/mac...r-machiavelli/

for further info on how to lose
http://www.dnc.org/

[Darth Executor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5178774.stm

You know, if I didn't know any better, I'd think Bush has bought into the Bible-beating fundie line here:

"Uh, uh...we gots to support Israel no matter what!...cause....cause, they's God's chosen people, and if we don't support them, we're supportin' the devil! So which side you want? God's side, or....or, the devil!?"

The church has the right to address the actions of the modern secular state of Israel just as much as it does the actions of the modern secular state of Djibouti. This Israeli response is disproportionate to the abduction of its soldiers, and the people of Lebanon are paying with their lives for Hezbollah's stupid move. Hezbollah initiated, and thus shares part of the blame, but true to their past, the Israeli government has responded to a pea-shooter with an atom bomb. And the U.S. isn't holding them accountable. This is despicable action.

Do you honestly think this is about two soldiers? It's about Israel being fed up with the regular attacks Hezbollah commits on its northern border. Those kidnappings were simply the final straw.

As it stands:

Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation and the UN ordered it disbanded (not that anybody listens to the UN but I figured I'd throw it in anyway.)
Hezbollah is popular among the Lebanese population
According to Wikipedia, Hezbollah holds 23 out of 128 seats in the Lebanese parliament making them a part of its government
The Lebanese government has made it clear that it is unwilling to disband Hezbollah and unwilling to keep it in check. Other reports claim it is also incapable but this leaves open the question of why they haven't called in the UN to help. Well, the question isn't really open. They haven't done anything because they willingly harbor terrorist scum. Whether they are capable of dealign with them or not is no longer relevant.

[Teallaura]

No other nation-state on earth is required to put up with the high level of aggression that Israel has put up with literally for decades. Eventually any nation-state will reach its breaking point. Lebanon is responsible for maintaining security within its borders - which would include controlling militant orgs. It didn't do that and hasn't done that since the UN required it years ago. Lebanon has no right to complain when military action has been taking place from within their borders against Israel literally for years and they did nothing to stop it.

Any other nation-state in the world would have long since bombed Lebanon into the stone age for even a fraction of the attacks Israel has endured. Blaming Israel is very much 'blaming the victim' in this conflict. Enough already!

If it's legit for Hezbollah to fire rockets into Israel with Lebanon acting even indirectly (by permitting it) to protect them, then it is perfectly legit for Israel to shoot back. 'Proportionate response' is an idiocy when you are discussing repeated acts of war - it's perfectly legit to retaliate with the force necessary to win, even if the incident which provoked the response wasn't as severe.

Where in the rulebook does it say small nation-states get to allow incursions/attacks from their sovereign territory onto a superior power and expect that the superior force will only respond 'proportionately'? Total nonsense.

Moral: Don't let lunatics use your lands as a base of operations against a nation-state that can kick your kester - and don't whine when the inevitable finally happens if you do.

[GreatWhiteHype2]

If it's legit for Hezbollah to fire rockets into Israel with Lebanon acting even indirectly (by permitting it) to protect them, then it is perfectly legit for Israel to shoot back. 'Proportionate response' is an idiocy when you are discussing repeated acts of war - it's perfectly legit to retaliate with the force necessary to win, even if the incident which provoked the response wasn't as severe.

Where in the rulebook does it say small nation-states get to allow incursions/attacks from their sovereign territory onto a superior power and expect that the superior force will only respond 'proportionately'? Total nonsense.

Moral: Don't let lunatics use your lands as a base of operations against a nation-state that can kick your kester - and don't whine when the inevitable finally happens if you do.

Ahhh....but there's a finer distinction here you need to make as a Christian...assuming, of course, that we are to speak TO states as the church. Israel is a nation-state. Hezbollah is a non-governmental organization. Lebanon is a nation-state. Israel is invading and bombing another sovereign nation-state under the pretenses of rooting out these members of Hezbollah, and killing civilians from that sovereign nation-state in the process.

Did Israel engage in diplomacy with Lebanon that could ultimately result in their joint actions to root out Hezbollah? Did they even THINK about it? Did they not just recently withdraw from occupying the southern edge of said nation-state? As a governmental organization, they should be held to a higher standard than a fragment extremist Muslim organization.

THIS is why their attacks are disproportionate. They've bombed multiple targets, including the international airport in Beirut (remind me quickly, is Beirut in the Hezbollah-controlled southern region of Lebanon?), and civilian neighborhoods around Hezbollah hot spots, killing innocent men, women, and children. Reminds me of the frequent times Israel shoots Hellfire missiles indiscriminately into Palestinian refugee camps as "reprisals" for suicide bombings.

Thus, whereas we recognize Israel doesn't have the same ethical expectations as those who follow Christ, it DOES as a government need to be held to the standard of ensuring the stability of society. This attack is clearly out of line.

[GreatWhiteHype2]

What would Sun Tzu do.

The Art of War by Sun Tzu, Part II Waging War

II Waging War
1. Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.
2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.
3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.
4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
7. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.
8. The skillful soldier does not raise a second levy, neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice.
9. Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs.
10. Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished.
11. On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people's substance to be drained away.
12. When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions.
13,14. With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their income will be dissipated; while government expenses for broken chariots, worn-out horses, breast-plates and helmets, bows and arrows, spears and shields, protective mantles, draught-oxen and heavy wagons, will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue.
15. Hence a wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy's provisions is equivalent to twenty of one's own, and likewise a single picul of his provender is equivalent to twenty from one's own store.
16. Now in order to kill the enemy, our men must be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards.
17. Therefore in chariot fighting, when ten or more chariots have been taken, those should be rewarded who took the first. Our own flags should be substituted for those of the enemy, and the chariots mingled and used in conjunction with ours. The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and kept.
18. This is called, using the conquered foe to augment one's own strength.
19. In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
20. Thus it may be known that the leader of armies is the arbiter of the people's fate, the man on whom it depends whether the nation shall be in peace or in peril.

© source where applicable

Also in Part IV Tactical Dispositions: #19 A victorious army opposed to a routed one, is as a pound's weight placed in the scale against a single grain.

Neocon_Voter

for further info on how to win
http://www.online-literature.com/mac...r-machiavelli/

for further info on how to lose
http://www.dnc.org/

For further info on what that yellow cross beside your name stands for:

http://biblegateway.com

For further information on your role in speaking to nations, meeting them where they're at, and calling them further with other yellow-cross people, see:

Isaiah 43

For further information on what the life of the yellow cross people should look like, see:

life of Jesus, Philippians 2:1-11

p.s. I almost bit on the tired response for your cute little "What would Sun Tzu do," but I chose to leave that for another day.

[kawaika]

Did Israel engage in diplomacy with Lebanon that could ultimately result in their joint actions to root out Hezbollah? Did they even THINK about it? Did they not just recently withdraw from occupying the southern edge of said nation-state? As a governmental organization, they should be held to a higher standard than a fragment extremist Muslim organization.

I really don't think thatt would work seeing as how Hezbollah seems to be pretty popular in Lebanon. Even if they weren't very popular, it would be bad politics to work with Israel on anything. Just look at what happened to Anwar Sadat. (FYI, he was assassinated--I'm convinced that his negotiations with Israel were the cause, not his arrests of Nasserists, etc.).

[GreatWhiteHype2]

I really don't think thatt would work seeing as how Hezbollah seems to be pretty popular in Lebanon. Even if they weren't very popular, it would be bad politics to work with Israel on anything. Just look at what happened to Anwar Sadat. (FYI, he was assassinated--I'm convinced that his negotiations with Israel were the cause, not his arrests of Nasserists, etc.).

My point is primarily that Israel didn't exhaust all their options before invading another sovereign nation. That's an act of war on that other nation. Dealing with a splinter group within the bounds of the country's territory is one thing, a transgression of international borders is another.

p.s. Don't forget those who are dying from errant weaponry who haven't done a thing in this matter.

[kawaika]

My point is primarily that Israel didn't exhaust all their options before invading another sovereign nation. That's an act of war on that other nation. Dealing with a splinter group within the bounds of the country's territory is one thing, a transgression of international borders is another.

p.s. Don't forget those who are dying from errant weaponry who haven't done a thing in this matter.

You have to be careful about arguing that they didn't exhaust all reasonable options--how do you know they didn't? For all I know they could have. Or maybe not. What evidence do you have that they did not exhaust all reasonable options?

If a country is harboring a (in the eyes of Lebanon) legitimate political group thats main aim is the destruction of Israel, what else could Israel do? It seems as though Israel would have to cross the border and fight that political group.

Note: I am slightly changing "all options" to "all reasonable options." Trying to work with Lebanon to defeat the Hezbollah, is not, in my opinion, a reasonable option. I'm too cynical for that.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Israel = Sovereign State
Lebanon = Sovereign State

They have a disagreement so they are going to war over it.
I'm guessing not a one of 'em give a flying flip whether or not we disagree with it or support it.

As it turns out, our level of justified approval is about the same as our level of justified condemnation.

[GreatWhiteHype2]

You have to be careful about arguing that they didn't exhaust all reasonable options--how do you know they didn't? For all I know they could have. Or maybe not. What evidence do you have that they did not exhaust all reasonable options?

If a country is harboring a (in the eyes of Lebanon) legitimate political group thats main aim is the destruction of Israel, what else could Israel do? It seems as though Israel would have to cross the border and fight that political group.

Note: I am slightly changing "all options" to "all reasonable options." Trying to work with Lebanon to defeat the Hezbollah, is not, in my opinion, a reasonable option. I'm too cynical for that.

The problem with adding in the qualifier "reasonable" is that "reasonable" action is in the eyes of the beholder. There are certain processes nation-states are expected to go through when transgressing the international borders with another in a military incursion. I noticed you described Hezbollah as a political group...I totally agree with that distinction...I think it's important to draw a distinction between a situation such as this and Pearl Harbor (off the top of my head). Pearl Harbor was a situation between two nation-states. This situation is between Israel and a non-governmental political group; but Israel's treating it like Pearl Harbor in its military response.

I think if Israel's made any overtures to Lebanon about a joint action or diplomacy period, we'd hear about it in five minutes. As far as I've seen, the two soldiers were abducted in the firefight, and Israel's been escalating the violence ever since. And Bush promised to "press the Israelis to minimize civilian casualties." Figures that one nation that just engaged in a pre-emptive war would support the other. Any war can be justified. Very few wars would be considered just; then the machinations of any modern war would render it unjust.

[GreatWhiteHype2]

Israel = Sovereign State
Lebanon = Sovereign State

They have a disagreement so they are going to war over it.
I'm guessing not a one of 'em give a flying flip whether or not we disagree with it or support it.

As it turns out, our level of justified approval is about the same as our level of justified condemnation.

This isn't Lebanon fighting, Gerbs. It's Hezbollah. Big difference.

p.s. And my intent isn't to care whether either country gives a flying flip about whether we disagree with or support their actions. We speak because we can and should. And we act because we can and should. And yes, when I say "we", I mean the church.

[Teallaura]

Ahhh....but there's a finer distinction here you need to make as a Christian...assuming, of course, that we are to speak TO states as the church. Israel is a nation-state. Hezbollah is a non-governmental organization. Lebanon is a nation-state. Israel is invading and bombing another sovereign nation-state under the pretenses of rooting out these members of Hezbollah, and killing civilians from that sovereign nation-state in the process.

Assumes facts not in evidence - and indeed already refuted. Hezbollah has a number of seats in the Lebanese parliment and Lebanon is still responsible for what it allows within its borders - as the UN resolution attests.

Did Israel engage in diplomacy with Lebanon that could ultimately result in their joint actions to root out Hezbollah? Did they even THINK about it? Did they not just recently withdraw from occupying the southern edge of said nation-state? As a governmental organization, they should be held to a higher standard than a fragment extremist Muslim organization.

Did you do your homework? Did you even think about it? Your ignorance is showing here.

Israel has engaged in talks with Lebanon - or they wouldn't have made the withdrawal. Lebanon simply hasn't kept up its end of the deal it had with the international community.

For internal political reasons, Lebanon has no desire to root out Hezbollah - that whole 'risking a civil war' thing kinda gets to them. That's no excuse for letting hezbollah run wild. Can't take the heat, stay out of kitchen.

THIS is why their attacks are disproportionate. They've bombed multiple targets, including the international airport in Beirut (remind me quickly, is Beirut in the Hezbollah-controlled southern region of Lebanon?), and civilian neighborhoods around Hezbollah hot spots, killing innocent men, women, and children. Reminds me of the frequent times Israel shoots Hellfire missiles indiscriminately into Palestinian refugee camps as "reprisals" for suicide bombings.

And this is why your response is silly - there is no obligation of proportional force - and no reason whatsoever for Israel to allow Hezbollah access to more weapons. It's called 'logistics'.

Thus, whereas we recognize Israel doesn't have the same ethical expectations as those who follow Christ, it DOES as a government need to be held to the standard of ensuring the stability of society. This attack is clearly out of line.

Yeah, they should just let Hezbollah keep taking pot shots at their citizenry indefinitely - that's being a really responsible nation. Israel has done way more than its fair share. Given the pain they've endured, the attack is clearly way overdue.

[GreatWhiteHype2]

Assumes facts not in evidence - and indeed already refuted. Hezbollah has a number of seats in the Lebanese parliment and Lebanon is still responsible for what it allows within its borders - as the UN resolution attests.

I'll give you that point, but it doesn't refute mine. You're essentially giving a blank check to any nation in this case if they can seek to justify an incursion into another sovereign nation...would you apply the same logic if the U.S. was invaded or attacked under these same pretenses?

Israel has engaged in talks with Lebanon - or they wouldn't have made the withdrawal. Lebanon simply hasn't kept up its end of the deal it had with the international community.

For internal political reasons, Lebanon has no desire to root out Hezbollah - that whole 'risking a civil war' thing kinda gets to them. That's no excuse for letting hezbollah run wild. Can't take the heat, stay out of kitchen.

Israel engaged in talks with Lebanon in the past . This is a whole 'nother animal here sista, and it required that proper diplomatic action be taken before a preemptive strike against another sovereign nation. Lebanon is not ultimately responsible for Hezbollah more than any other nation-state; if they can't take care of the situation, others need to link up with them and put some teeth in it. This clearly is not the way to handle it.

And this is why your response is silly - there is no obligation of proportional force - and no reason whatsoever for Israel to allow Hezbollah access to more weapons. It's called 'logistics'.

Do you honestly think Israel should be given the freedom to "bomb Lebanon into the stone age" as you implied above? Clearly you're not even a just war theorist then, and you've allowed the reality of modern war to trump your moral awareness of the realities of war and the duty of the Christian response to it. Of course there's no "obligation" of proportional force, but the expectation still exists. If the U.S. had responded to Sept 11th by nuking Afghanistan to "root out bin Laden," there would have been international repercussions, would there not? We should expect reasonable action out of Israel in this case; they have not handled themselves in a reasonable fashion.

Yeah, they should just let Hezbollah keep taking pot shots at their citizenry indefinitely - that's being a really responsible nation. Israel has done way more than its fair share. Given the pain they've endured, the attack is clearly way overdue.

False dichotomy. It's not either do nothing or do what they're doing now. There are processes a purportedly "free" nation should carry out to set the pace for the rest of the world as to how a democratically elected, balanced state should operate. Why would I, if I were an Iraqi today, get excited about the "light on the hill spread of democracy" ideology that ended up killing my family members if a democratic nation acts in a tough situation like those dubbed "rogue nations"? I wouldn't. No, the attack isn't overdue, and yes, they're acting like schoolyard children disputing over the swings. They're militarily more menacing than Lebanon, so they're bullying them around. And people are dying. That's dead wrong.

[Hail Mary]

Thus, whereas we recognize Israel doesn't have the same ethical expectations as those who follow Christ, it DOES as a government need to be held to the standard of ensuring the stability of society. This attack is clearly out of line.

What, in your opinion, would be a response that is clearly "in line?"

Hezbollah is arming itself with more and more missiles (delivered and/or funded by $100 million per year from Iran) and their technology is improving. There are (by Hezbollah's own words) 10,000 rockets already in Lebanon ready to launch against Israel, and Hezbollah openly calls for the destruction of Israel entirely.

Would you just let Hezbollah accumulate more missiles? Would you let them get a nuclear weapon from Iran? Would you let them detonate a nuclear weapon?

I'm just wondering, there must be a point where even you would agree Israel has to act decisively. Right?