[lit-ideas] Re: Do You Have a Moral Urgency?
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:01:59 -0400
Omar Kusturica wrote:
"Phil freely engages in making unsupported assertions ..."
Nope. These are facts, and the great thing about facts is that they are
free to whoever bothers to make the effort. But ya gotta make the
effort.
Omar:
"Simply, there is no evidence for the claims that Hezbollah was using
civilians as human shields ..."
Hezbollah has been using suburbs to store their weapons and fire rockets
into Israel. They have also been using these suburbs as cover from the
IDF. So, the Israelis have, in general, stayed out of towns in order to
reduce casualties on both sides while Hezbollah has tried to draw them
into towns, in order to increase casualties on both sides.
Omar:
"Also, it is a fact that the Hezollah had killed more Israeli soldiers
than civilians, whereas Israel killed many more civlians than Hezbollah
fighters."
Since Hezbollah fighters do not wear uniforms and do not fight as a
unit, it isn't at all clear who among the dead are civilian and who is
Hezbollah. That is the point of Hezbollah using civilians as human
shields.
Omar:
"Further, even the IDF did not claim that it was targetting only the
Hezbollah fighters; it said repeatedly in public that it was targetting
infrastructure such as roads, bridges, factories, installations etc."
Since the discussion was about casualties, there was no need to discuss
the destruction of infrastructure. Since Hezbollah uses the civilian
population as a shield, there is no way the Israelis can be certain what
is or is not a Hezbollah asset. Further, the destruction of bridges and
roads was intended to restrict the re-supply of rockets from Iran
through Syria. The rockets that were being used to target Israeli
civilians.
Omar:
"As to the claim that: 'Israel sent in its military with rules of
engagement that required a minimum of civilian casualties, thereby
endangering the lives of its soldiers' this is complete nonsense."
Nope. On a number of occasions Israeli commandos were inserted into
Lebanon to attack specific targets with a minimum of casualties. If the
Israelis had used the same rules of engagement as that of Hezbollah,
they would have simply levelled whole buildings and towns regardless of
how many civilians died, thereby reducing the risks to their own
soldiers and increasing Lebanese casualties. The greater number of
casualties among Israel's fighting force is evidence of the lengths
Israel was willing to go to protect Lebanese civilian casualties. The
minimal number of casualties among Hezbollah fighters is evidence of
their willingness to sacrifice the lives of Lebanese civilians.
Omar concludes:
"Finally, as to Israel having supposably attained rational objectives
"to clear a buffer zone from its border and force a peacemaking presence
to maintain peace" I reply that: 1) these were not the objectives that
were originally stated and 2) whether Israel has indeed achieved this is
highly doubtful."
It may or may not have been their initial objectives, but it is what
they settled for. Whether they achieve it is highly doubtful because it
isn't what Hezbollah is willing to live with. Hezbollah is not
satisfied with peace, happily willing to continue to sacrifice the lives
of Lebanese civilians.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
