[lit-ideas] Re: The Need for a Ceasefire
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:13:21 -0700
Stan,
I can understand the Balser/Freedman argument. Theoretically, If a
multinational force were to be installed in Southern Lebanon and in effect
form a buffer between Hezbollah and Israel, then Hezbollah wouldn't be able
to engage in attacks; which given its nature it is unable to avoid carrying
out. However I have a very low opinion of the effectiveness of
multinational forces. Who is the UN going to get to go there? How long
will they stay? What will Hezbollah do while they are there?
I don't believe Israel's response will "broaden and deepen" hostilities in
any real sense. In other word they won't go beyond the pursuit of the
destruction of Hezbollah. Notice also that surrounding Middle Eastern
nations are not showing their usual sympathy for Hezbollah or Hamas. I think
this is an excellent opportunity for Israel to do as much damage to
Hezbollah as possible.
I notice one of Simon's arguments, one he has voiced more than once -- not
really an argument but the sort of "brain-scrambling" Selbourne referred to
in his book. Simon excuses Hezbollah because they only kidnapped two
soldiers and have managed to kill far fewer Israelis than the reverse. He
is arguing in effect that if you take a force and invade a sovereign nation
and manage to kill ten people and the invaded nation responds and kills 100
of your people that the invaded nation is more to blame than the invading
one. This of course is utter nonsense. It flies in the face of common
sense. If you are invaded then you go to war to destroy your invader. You
don't engage in a board game and count casualties, you defeat your enemy,
killing as many as necessary. If Hezbollah could shout, "time out," you
have killed ten times more of us than we have of you, what a boon that would
be for them. Of course that would never happen. Militant Islam invariably
inflates their successes and deflates their failures. We could probably
find reports in Lebanon saying that Hezbollah had killed ten times more
Israelis than they had of them.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stan Spiegel
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:26 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] [BTvS-General] The Need for a Ceasefire: A Message From
Marcia Freedman and Diane Balser
Here's an alternative viewpoint, Lawrence. I'm not sure I agree with Brit
Tzedek entirely, but here's their viewpoint. Michael Lerner, editor of
Tikkun, also has mixed feelings about the war on Lebanon. In spite of what I
said to Omar, I also have mixed feelings. I mourn the loss of life in both
Israel and Lebanon, but I'm not sure that a cease-fire today is what's
needed. A cease-fire would give Hez the breathing room it needs to regroup.
It would attack again, I'm sure, and blame Israeli aggression for any
response. Omar seems to think that any Israeli response is the problem;
never is Hezbollah or Hamas' attacks the issue.
Given the Omar's out there who see Israel at fault -- Hamas and Hezbollah
are poor little victims -- I want to see Hezbollah destroyed, turned into
pulp.
Stan Spiegel
Portland, ME
Other related posts:
