[lit-ideas] Re: The Need for a Ceasefire
- From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:48:30 EDT
Hello lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx,
In reference to your comment:
Who is the UN going to get to go there? How long will they stay? What will
Hezbollah do while they are there?
Well, today Israel managed to bomb the UN Peacekeeping building and kill the
four UN officials there........
Julie Krueger
(didn't the UN have a big sign on the building? Alert the Israeli's to the
latitude & longitude of its location?)
========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: The Need for a
Ceasefire Date: 7/25/06 11:37:43 A.M. Central Daylight Time From:
_lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx) To:
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on:
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 wouldnât 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 donât believe Israelâs response will âbroaden and deepenâ
hostilities in
any real sense. In other word they wonât 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 Simonâs arguments, one he has voiced more than once -- not
really an argument but the sort of âbrain-scramblingâ 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 donât engage in a
board game and count casualties, you defeat your enemy, killing as many as
necessary. If Hezbollah could shout, âtime out,â 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:
