Okay, so I've had a few discussions about this nightmarish situation recently, and essentially my take on it is this:
Technically speaking, Israel is a democracy being threatened by a terrorist organization being hosted within a weak/failed state. We in the west have already decided (twice) that these are appropriate conditions under which to invade, producing massive civilian casualties in the name of providing greater security (or "fighting them over there" if it's not going so well, or "humanitarian reasons" if you're the kind of government that admits when it can't find WMDs).
Hezbollah are firing indiscriminately into Israel's civilian population with a large number of (inaccurate, not terribly destructive, but obviously very scary) missiles supplied by Iran. Israel is firing back with overwhelming force and -- and this is very debateable -- not noticeably greater accuracy.
So morally, Israel should have some kind of advantage on the basis that they are responding to terror, and their intention is not to cause civilian casualties -- they are aiming at "military targets", like, er, apartment blocks, because the terrorists are in the apartment blocks. However, two things combine to rob them of this tenuous advantage:
All of this is not to say that I think Hezbollah have some kind of moral advantage. This is to say that both sides are being morally reprehensible and I can summon no sympathy for either one as a result. It's horribly depressing, and I'm tempted to just let these fuckers drown in their own bloodbath until they get sick of pointlessly killing each other.
...but it doesn't seem like that's going to happen, so it seems like somebody has to wade in their and separate them, and it can't be the US or the UK -- knowledgeable friends have suggested Turkey and France with an option on Russia. I don't care who it is as long as they do it quickly. But standing idly by while Israel commits war crimes in the name of security is just further blackening our already heavily tarnished names.
Comments
Robert
More generally, the moral high ground has been a pretty empty place in the middle east for decades, so I've just given up worrying about it.
Laurie
Robert
And there are many people in Lebanon (especially the large non-Muslim population) who wouldn't touch Hizbollah with a bargepole.
Chez
1. ALL media reports from Lebanon are controlled by Hizb'Allah. Journalists who don't show what they want get harassed and threatened. Your statement that Israel has not hit back with "noticeably greater accuracy" is a product soley of Hizb'Allah's propaganda effort and - as you well know - total rubbish. See: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVlMmRjNDllNzhkZmE1OWM3NmE1OGQ4OGQxMDA1YjQ= and http://newsbusters.org/node/6574
2. Israel drops leaflets to try and get civilians out of the area. Meanwhile, Hizb'Allah sets up checkpoints, forcing civilians to stay in the area, and in the apartment buildings deliberately located next to bunkers and caches. Yet you throw the term "warcrime" at only Israel and without any evidence that a single one has actually happened.
Also, why do you think seperating them is going to achieve anything? Oh, it might stop the fighting here and now, but only at the expense of more trouble later. Israel didn't accidentally knock Hizb'Allah's arm in a night club starting a silly fight. Any proposal which allows Hizb'Allah's continued effective existence will not be a solution. A demand for an immediate cease fire is not much more than a demand for a short-term fix to avoid the nasty, messy problem (a problem with no nice cuddly solution) of dealing with Hizb'Allah once and for all.
Demanding someone stop it is the easy option that avoids the real problem.