NationStates Jolt Archive

If Hizb Allah had managed to shoot down an Israeli cargo plane filled with US weapons being sent to Israel just five minutes ago, would that be considered a "legitimate" breach of the cease fire?

No more so than the recent Israeli raid to disrupt weapons from being shipped into Lebanon.

No, for several reasons, first and foremost is the legal language of the UN Resolution regarding militias in southern Lebanon.

The United Nations demands that all non-governmental militias in southern Lebanon are to disarm, any action otherwise is a direct violation of the UNSC Resolution, and a violation of the ceasefire.

The IDF is not classified as a militia in southern Lebanon, and as such, they are not subject to the demands of disarmament. On an equal basis, the regular Lebanese military is protected under the same status. They can receive as many weapons as they want.

But as a Hiz'bo'allah is a destabilizing, non-government force, they are in violation of the cease fire if they are receiving weapons.

No, for several reasons, first and foremost is the legal language of the UN Resolution regarding militias in southern Lebanon.

The United Nations demands that all non-governmental militias in southern Lebanon are to disarm, any action otherwise is a direct violation of the UNSC Resolution, and a violation of the ceasefire.

The IDF is not classified as a militia in southern Lebanon, and as such, they are not subject to the demands of disarmament. On an equal basis, the regular Lebanese military is protected under the same status. They can receive as many weapons as they want.

But as a Hiz'bo'allah is a destabilizing, non-government force, they are in violation of the cease fire if they are receiving weapons.


Game, set, match.

Moral equivalency is dead and has been dead for years, give it up.

No, for several reasons, first and foremost is the legal language of the UN Resolution regarding militias in southern Lebanon.

The United Nations demands that all non-governmental militias in southern Lebanon are to disarm, any action otherwise is a direct violation of the UNSC Resolution, and a violation of the ceasefire.

The IDF is not classified as a militia in southern Lebanon, and as such, they are not subject to the demands of disarmament. On an equal basis, the regular Lebanese military is protected under the same status. They can receive as many weapons as they want.

But as a Hiz'bo'allah is a destabilizing, non-government force, they are in violation of the cease fire if they are receiving weapons.

You win.

No, for several reasons, first and foremost is the legal language of the UN Resolution regarding militias in southern Lebanon.

The United Nations demands that all non-governmental militias in southern Lebanon are to disarm, any action otherwise is a direct violation of the UNSC Resolution, and a violation of the ceasefire.

The IDF is not classified as a militia in southern Lebanon, and as such, they are not subject to the demands of disarmament. On an equal basis, the regular Lebanese military is protected under the same status. They can receive as many weapons as they want.

But as a Hiz'bo'allah is a destabilizing, non-government force, they are in violation of the cease fire if they are receiving weapons.

Go run for President.

Moral equivalency is dead and has been dead for years, give it up.
Lots of people on NS General seem to believe it is not dead, much to my amusement.

They sound as inane as the creationists.

Lots of people on NS General seem to believe it is not dead, much to my amusement.

They sound as inane as the creationists.

Not that I necessarily disagree, but Israeli weapons aren't exactly filled with sunshine and kittens, are they? They kill innocent people (collateral damage) as well as the Hezbollah weapons.

Not that I necessarily disagree, but Israeli weapons aren't exactly filled with sunshine and kittens, are they? They kill innocent people (collateral damage) as well as the Hezbollah weapons.

The difference is usually one of intent, and conformity with the law.

The Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly states that people who use civilians as shields (as Hezbollah brags to the UN that they do) cannot be expected to be immune from attack - the IDF may certainly shell Hezbollah if they are sitting in the middle of a field full of children. While the IDf intends to hit the Hezbollah, the children are within meters of the position - that's collateral damage.

Hezbollah, on the other hand, is deliberately targeting civilians. Say, an entire city. In the hopes of killing an Israeli (doesn't matter to them whether they're military or civilian).

The IDF also does not send suicide bombers to civilian areas with the idea of killing as many civilians as possible.

The IDF doesn't have to spend the money on precision weapons that radically minimize civilian casualties - but they do.

Not even close in the moral equivalency department.

The difference is usually one of intent, and conformity with the law.

The Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly states that people who use civilians as shields (as Hezbollah brags to the UN that they do) cannot be expected to be immune from attack - the IDF may certainly shell Hezbollah if they are sitting in the middle of a field full of children. While the IDf intends to hit the Hezbollah, the children are within meters of the position - that's collateral damage.

Hezbollah, on the other hand, is deliberately targeting civilians. Say, an entire city. In the hopes of killing an Israeli (doesn't matter to them whether they're military or civilian).

The IDF also does not send suicide bombers to civilian areas with the idea of killing as many civilians as possible.

The IDF doesn't have to spend the money on precision weapons that radically minimize civilian casualties - but they do.

Not even close in the moral equivalency department.

Fine. Hezbollah uses terrorist tactics that we can all recognize as despicable, and from a legal standpoint they are completely in the wrong. However I find your suggestion that the IDF spends on precision weapons questionable. Did they just pound the entire southern suburbs of Beirut because they were bored? Yes, people had time to leave before the bombing, but they don't have homes anymore.

I guess my point is that the Israelis are hardly guiltless in this conflict. 700 to 1,200 Lebanese civilians dead in the course of a month and one million displaced. You might shrug, but this means something.

Fine. Hezbollah uses terrorist tactics that we can all recognize as despicable, and from a legal standpoint they are completely in the wrong. However I find your suggestion that the IDF spends on precision weapons questionable. Did they just pound the entire southern suburbs of Beirut because they were bored? Yes, people had time to leave before the bombing, but they don't have homes anymore.

I guess my point is that the Israelis are hardly guiltless in this conflict. 700 to 1,200 Lebanese civilians dead in the course of a month and one million displaced. You might shrug, but this means something.

Hezbollah's main supply warehouses were in southern Beirut. One that was hit exploded for over 45 minutes. Must have been quite a cache of weapons, because an aerial bomb doesn't go off for more than a split second.

I'm not saying the Israelis are guiltless - I'm saying that Hezbollah is not the moral equivalent of the Israelis - not even close.

israeli is pretty much the bottom of the barrel. they have been murdering children for a while now.

Steering well clear of the children, and the definition of murder, I'd say that no one has a "right" to shoot down any aircraft, unless that certainly involves no loss of life.

So, I could shoot down a spy drone (unmanned) over my private property, taking responsibility for any loss of life (unlikely) consequent on it's falling on someone. I'd be liable for the material losses, but not a war criminal or terrorist.

I can't shoot down a piloted plane, because what it is carrying is "contraband." That holds property above life, and the means of a crime above it's commission. It's killing the pilot and destroying the materiel, but only economically affecting the motivation and the means by which the "terrorists," "insurgents," "militia" or whatever plan to commission the crime. It costs the putative commissioners of the crime money, but it costs the pilot their life. No contest.

I go further. The appropriate response to conspiracy to commit a crime is the "quiet word." It's using the criminal's trusted channels to point out to them that they could have died for conspiring to commit the crime. It's showing them, in a personal way, not a public and humiliating way, that they haven't got a chance. Take their money if you can, but don't go the "means justifies the end" way, because that ends with you being a murderer of children, or worse. There is worse.

In this instance, it's communicating to hizbollah that Israel knows what's on the plane. It's negotiating a place for the plane to land, and all the crew to evacuate the plane, THEN blowing it up, THEN compensating Hizbollah (that's right, giving them money) for what they might reasonably have paid for the cargo, and also whoever owned the plane, for it.

Hard, isn't it? But we've got to get away from the idea that blowing things up is an easy option. It isn't.

Doesn't work for terrorists. Doesn't work for anyone else.

Hard, isn't it? But we've got to get away from the idea that blowing things up is an easy option. It isn't.

Doesn't work for terrorists. Doesn't work for anyone else.
Blowing things up isn't the easy option. It's the final option. It's the diplomacy of last resort as the vanquished are so compliant there is no more need for negotiation with them. It can only be understood in the context of all the diplomatic failures that preceded it.

The choice put to Israel right now, and for the past two decades, may well be: "Are we better served by a shorter high intensity conflict where we mercilessly destroy those people, within our reach, that shelter our enemies? In turn accepting the long term consequences of shocking the international community and the changes it would doubtlessly work on our National conscience." or "Are we better served by maintaining the lower level conflict in it's current state indefinitely, working great tragedy on all sides with no hope in sight while further acknowledging the former option may ultimately be necessary in anyway?"

The only way the Israelies can pacify their enemies is to kill them. Their foes may chose other paths for themselves, or they may not, ever. While there is some influence that can be cultivated, bribing, arguing, cajoling, the Israelies do not get to do the choosing for those who oppose them. The only peace the Israelies can chose for ,in this case, the Lebanese and Hezzbollah is that of the grave. It's sole advantage over all other methods is it's finality. After the victor has committed the vanquished to the remembrances of history there are no more appeals.