Thursday, August 24, 2006

desperate and stupid: a rant

These posters are apparently all over Beirut - or wherever rubble exists, anyway. They bother me. They bother me because the message they convey implies that "we Lebanese were simply minding our own business, living our lives and not bothering anyone, and then all of a sudden, an Israeli-American armaggedon befell us!"

Well...What can I say? Witty? Sure. Especially that "Middle Beast" one. But self-righteously stupid nevertheless.

Message to Hizballah propaganda people:

You don't go beat up on someone a hundred times your size, and then cry "wawa" when the guy finally turns around and beats the crap out of you! Oooh... "made in the USA!"


You knew what they were capable of doing all along... even when your brainwashed supporters were distributing baklawa after you kidnaped those Israeli soldiers.

What would have happened if we lived in a Democratic polity? Well... I think the public would have had a lot of questions to ask. Maybe they would have formed a commission. Maybe that commission would eventually come to certain conclusions that would not necessarily please Hizballah, but Hizballah would have to abide by its decisions anyway.

Oh wait, we don't live in a democratic polity. Besides, the very people who should be at the forefront of calling for such an inquiry, consider doing so "treacherous." How many articles have I read, quoting villagers standing in front of their ruined houses, proudly proclaiming that the "Muqawama" protected Lebanon?

Oh yeah. And how could I forget? This calamity was "made in the USA!" It's all the Big and Little Satan's fault! I'm going to go blow my self up now so that I can somehow make my life a little better!



Doha said...


I'm your best friend, but I have to say that this post is very simplistic. The situation is more complex than the way you portray it and we all know that you know it's complicated.

I'm not saying that HA should not have looked at what happened to Gaza when they kidnapped the two Israeli soldiers, but Israel's reaction to the kidnapping was catastrophic.

Moreover, as people see it down there, they see that the US has a hand in this destruction. We all saw how they gave Israel the green light to hit HA for a couple of weeks before intervening and we all know that this strategy is a recipe for disaster because it has emboldened the rogue elements in our region.

Plus, we don't need a commission. Commissions take forever to come to conclusions; remember the commission that was supposed to look into our electoral process, something so simple as that was so difficult to agree on, then how about a commission after this war. For God's sake we didn't even create a commission after the civil war ended.

What's needed right now is a strong stand by the gov't to spread the Lebanese army south and north and let's leave people to speak their mind.

Comte Almaviva said...

Oh Edward Said would have a field day with you

blaming the victim is the perennial symptom of the classic lebanese inferiority complex viz-a-viz the civilized west.

Raja said...


is Hizballah the victim here? Go and ask a Hizballahi if he sees himself as a victim?

The Shi'a of the South are the victims. The organization that they believe has their interests at heart committed a disastrous error, and struck the Israelis one too many times. The Shi'a civilians ended up paying the highest price of all.

Shouldn't they then hold this organization accountable for its blunder? This organization that, I repeat, claims to have their interests at heart?

Sherri said...


Israel dropped the bombs that killed over 1100 innocent civilians in Lebanon. They made those choices. Noone forced them to make those specific choices.

The victims are the Shiite population and the country of Lebanon.

And the United States was and is still sending Israel more weapons to use against Lebanese civilians. At the very time the bombs were being dropped, four or more weapons shipments were in the process of being shipped. This includes a new shipment of cluster bombs. I don't know if they have been sent or not. There is supposed to be a moratorium in the United States against sending cluster bombs, in effect since the last time Israel used them against civilians in Lebanon in the 1982 war.

On this point, I recently read that if a country sends another country weapons they know are being used to commit war crimes, the party who supplies the weapons is also guilty of war crimes.

In addition, the United States gave Israel the green light to keep the attack on Lebanon going for over a month to give them time to weaken Hezbullah. The rest of the world was demanding a cease fire and a stop to the suffering of innocent civilains from the beginning.

Raja said...


I want to make a couple points:

1. I have said this before: we all know what the Israelis have done before, what they are capable of doing, and what they are capable of getting away with.

2. I am not making a moral argument. Rather, I am saying, if you were Hizballah, and you were genuinly concerned with your population, would you continue on a path that ensures the kind of response we got throughout July and early August?

You see... Hizballah always thought that it had the upper hand, and that the Israelis would not "cross the line" because of their "detterence."

Well, they were proved to be very wrong. The Israelis slammed villages, the dahiyeh, Lebanon's infrastructure and more into oblivion. Shouldn't Hizballah be held accountable for its false assumptions?

You see, we always knew what Israel was capable of. I wouldn't expect any better from them. However, maybe we should expect a little bit more from Hizballah.

Ergotelina said...

The people in Haifa may also say....

..Made in Russia....

Sherri said...


From all I have read, kidnapping soldiers and prisoner swaps have happened before between Israel and Hezbullah. What Israel claims set off this war was an action by Hezbullah not really different from prior actions of Hezbullah. I understand there have also been prior kidnappings by Israel of Hezbullah officials.

I don't think Hezbullah anticipated the reaction of Israel, that occurred. I do not think such a response was reasonably anticipated by anyone.

I think that Hezbullah needs to show restraint right now and they need to work with other groups and parties in Lebanon, not against them. Regardless of the past, everyone has new choices to make today and those choices are crucial to future peace. From the news I have heard lately, Hezbullah appears to be holding to the cease fire.

I will continue to hope and pray the cease fire holds.

The people of Lebanon need to be united and work together for the common good of the country, Christians, Shiites, Sunnis, and all political parties, including Hezbullah.

Chris from lebanon said...

Lebanon's problem is that of a leadership. Why?..check this:

Siniora and all sunni lebanese always lacked backbones to stand up. Over the civil war, Chamoun offered them to join the christians. They refused, went home and hid behind palestenians. Sioniora is making a big mistake by praising HA instead of being unconditional about their disarmement.

Jaja and the lebanese forces: Well that is history since the mid 80's when the power trip of Jaja and Aoun destroyed a formidable force that pretained the balance of power in lebanon. Now Jaja is barking out of his house while admiting that the 80's war against Aoun destroyed the christian power in lebanon.

Joumblat: One day he's a march 14 revolutionary, next day, god knows what direction he'll take. Besides, very little unfluence at this point.

Hezbollah: Despite its propoganda victory among muslims, very few lebanese take advantage of the fact that HA was substantialy weakened from military point of view. HA is buying time. Playing propoganda in order to scare lebanese people.

Conclusion: Either the US will dump us in favour of syria, in which case, lebanon will have a new but uglier face, OR
we will see another round of destruction again and again.

What we need: Leadership that could stop HA.
What we have now: Leaders that we call in lebanon (Cow's cunt)

Solomon2 said...

Raja, I think you underestimate the power of propaganda. In my opinion, Nasrallah understands Lebanon very well. People don't have to believe in everything Hezbollah says, they only have to accept the big points and the tone. The militant view has many allies of fear throughout the world as well. Very few will examine the evidence carefully and announce that almost everything Hizbollah claims is false, nor that there are no incidences of Israel violating international law. (Here's one example of such a falsehood.)

Dimitry said...


In one word: Bravo.

Summing up the situation in "They're evil! Bwaaa!" may be very comfortable, but an attitude of "Well, the other side is whatever it is. Now, given that, what is the smartest thing I can do" is the only hope of getting somewhere. I don't agree with most of the specific statements you made, but what is important is the underlining claim - one has responsibility over what one is doing, and therefore over what happends to him.

Loli said...

What bugs me most in the logic of HA and their blinded supporters, is that HA simultaneously plays three roles: the perpetrator, the victim and the rescuer. How is that possible?

Bad Vilbel said...

Am I the only one reading this who actually agrees with Raja's sentiments?

This is not about justifying who is a victim and who isn't. Hell, everyone's a victim.

But I had the exact same reaction as Raja to those posters, and to hezbollah's supporters' claims of victory, and resistance.

I have news for them idiots: When you're country's destroyed, it's not a victory. End of story.

People should stop valuing "dignity" and "honor" over life itself.
I got the crap beat out of me, my village is rubble, my friends are dead, but you know what? I held on to my dignity and honor...hah!

anthonyb said...

"Someone who sees himself as a victim will almost never morally evaluate himself or put limits on his own actions. Why should he? He is the victim. ----Thomas Friedman"

The Middle East News Addict said...

To Raja

Though I would have used a little bit less sarcasem, I agree with every word. It is high times that people in the Arab world in General and Lebanon in particular, start taking control over where thier lives are going. Sure, we can blame Israel and the US as much as we want; but we should look at where it has gotten us to. I could go into many examples but I think we are all smart enough here to see this... it has gotten us no where. Simply provided us with an excuse to stay where we are.

To Doha:
I agree with you the post is simplistic, and even more, sarcastic; but sometimes it takes this sort of posting to actually convey the message.

The Middle East News Addict said...

To Comte Alvaviva

Edward Said would have a field day with everyone. He is a known scholar but as his many critics in the Arab world would note, his ideology summed up to saying that the whole Arab culture which has developed for thousends of years, was a creation of the west and Orientalists. Quite demeaning to people who have had their hand in so many of the world's intelectual developments, sometimes before Western philosophers could even grasp the ideas!

In a sense, Edward Said's idoelogy resembles that of Hezbollah and other radical Islamist movements of blaming others for their mistakes. Not surprisingly, this was also a Palestinian tactic, which Said supported: blame Israel for Palestinians using Jordan, Egypt and Syria for their wars before 67; blame the US for taking sides after Nasser decided to take Soviet weapons, blame Israel for Palestinians throwing away the Camp David 2000 accords etc. etc.

So please if you are going to quote or refer to Edward Said, at least take the time to know what he was all about.

The Middle East News Addict said...

Sherri I am trying to understand your logic; but alas, I have failed.

You are saying that because Hezbollah has done similar things before, Israel should seat quietly again? I would not expect them to and anyone who has followed Israeli politics should not either. Especially Shikh Nasrallah who kept bolstering about how much he knows Israeli politics.

He said Olmert and Peretz lacked the military experience. True, but he would have had to deduce from that, that it means they had a lot more to prove to the public and as such would react harder to such provocation, as they did.

And besides, does the fact that Hezbollah has done it before justifies inaction???

If, god forbids, you got mogged in the street once, you would have two options. The first don't ever carry a purse or wallet. You know someone is going to mug you again so next time don't carry money!!! The second is take a self defense course. The results of that should be clear.

Chas said...

Dimitry and news addict,
Good comments. It is a lot easier to blame the other party than to accept responsibility for the mistakes and wrongs of your own.

There is plenty of blame to go round, enough for everyone .. why not share?

Peace Chas

3li- said...


You are now officially Dazed and Confused.

It is no accident that it is the Israelis, and their Lebanese sympathizers, who are now cheering you on.

There is no logic, complexity, background or context to your rants.

Your posts have now become completely irrelevant.

Doha said...


not every time someone says their mind, they should be branded as an Israeli sympathizer, but i can tell you that speaking our mind on this blog has gotten tougher, vis-a-vis other lebanese, when we are flooded with comments from israel supporting what's being written.

perhaps that's why raja decided to moderate the comments section to try to bring the comment section to the way it was before the war. it's a difficult task to moderate. i don't know if you read Beirut Spring, but we want to follow on Mustapha's steps by moderating comments. raja and i still have to figure out the parameters for moderation.


chuck said...

hisballa had lost it's legitimacy when Israel withdrew from south lebanon in 1982. u cannot argue with that.
international law doesn't see the shabaa farms as a lebanese territory, and therefore hisballa's claim to continue fighting for the fredom of lebanon is false.

more then that, hisballa doesn't claim to be a freedom fighter for lebanon. it claims to be a freedom fighter organisation that it's goal is to liberate the land of Israel from the hands of the zionist. every speech nasralla has made always had this element in his words, hitting the zionist infadles. so don't talk to me about resistance. hisballa's resistance is towards the existance of the state of Israel, and Israel doesn't have to accept such a resistance.

hisballa is also a resistance to the government of lebanon. it acts on it's own deccisions without concidering the governmental or diplomatic issues that the whole state considers. it acts as an army, but not the lebanese army, because it's soldiers r willing to fight untill their death, and they don't concider the death of the lebanese people. they will continue to fight even after every lebanese civilian is dead. that's not an army that is supposed to protect the state. this is an army of suiciders who r willing to take the whole world down to the grave along with them.

i wouldn't count on such an army for my protection.

Bad Vilbel said...

Doha, Raja,

I, for one, am glad you decided to moderate the comments. It had gotten out of hand lately on this and other blogs.

There seems to be a certain segment of the audience who's not interested in actual debate, and more interested in oneupmanship, and tossing around chidlish and immature slogans and accusations.

Al Ghaddab, and anyone else who likes to bandy slogans and rethoric:
This is not a world of black and white. No one is always right or always wrong. Just because I am Lebanese doesn't mean I have to side with every opinion coming out of Lebanon or out of the Lebanese government (or Hezbollah for that matter). Democracy is based on healthy dissent, disagreement and debate. It also invites constructive criticism.
Just because I happen to disagree with this or that action by Hezbollah or by whoever else, doesn't make me an Israeli sympathizer. And just because I disagree with this or that action by Israel doesn't make me a Hezbollah terrorist. I'm a Lebanese, and I have lots of opinions on lots of things that happen to fall in the various shades of grey in between your black and white worlds.

chuck said...

well, please let us know what exactly r u'r parameters.
i liked these disscusions...

Fabián said...

Hi Raja:

Hezbollah says very clearly what they want: to destroy Israel. The rest is just filling. "If they kidnapped before and Israel didn't do anything... if the Israelis attacked instead of negotiate". Simply, that is not the issue.

Why did Hezbollah say it attacked (with a barrage of missiles against Israeli towns to distract while they were kidnapping the soldiers, please don't you forget who started with the missiles)? To free Samir Kuntar, that murderer?

Just a question. Did not occur to HA that the best way to free anyone and stop the bloodshed is by MAKING PEACE WITH ISRAEL instead of crossing the border to attack her?

just a thought.

Borderline said...

I'm sorry, but I don't care what the other comments say. Maybe your post was simplistic, but that just highlights the frustration of being surrounded by people who are either unable or unwilling to query their own part in this situation. Frankly, I happen to think you're right on this one.

tears for lebanon said...

They bother me because the message they convey implies that "we Lebanese were simply minding our own business, living our lives and not bothering anyone, and then all of a sudden, an Israeli-American armaggedon befell us!"

Yes Raja...that is part of the message..and to a degree, rightfully so.

If it is the belief that Hez is to be blamed for all destruction and for the Lebanese casualities by using Lebanese as human shields...then can u explain to me how Hez is responsible for the destruction of Lebanon's bridges, roads, airport, and bombing of christian east beirut, let alone the various other villages where no shia or hez exist? Can you also explain how Hez is responsible for the prohibition of fuel ships to enter the sea port to aid the hospitals in need for generator support?

The capture of 2 Israeli soldiers does not justify the atrocities that we witnessed by Israel.

My question to you Raja is: If Israel's intention is to fight, why did the rest of Lebanon have to pay the price?....because yes Raja...some Lebanese were just simply minding their own business, living their lives, and not bothering anyone.

The Middle East News Addict said...

To Tears for Lebanon

Israel had no intention to destroy Lebanon. Had they had it they would have done so from air without risking the lives of their soldiers on the ground.

As for some Lebanese were minding their own business, I can only utter a famous quote: "Bad things happen when good people seat idley by..."

zalame said...

TFL said: "some Lebanese were just simply minding their own business, living their lives, and not bothering anyone."

Most of Israelis were doing the same, living their lives. For six years we had peace and quiet, economy was recovering on both sides, it seemed like a good period.

But then, Hez decided to cross the international border, kill some Israeli soldiers and kidnap two.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing", and indeed most good Lebanese did nothing to prevent Hez from taking Lebanon hostage.

Dimitry said...


If you don't want people to connect between the "people who mind their own business" in Beirut and Sidon to HA in South Lebanon, draw an international border in the middle. In matters of international policy, particularly war and peace, states are treated as a single entety. A war between the US and Iran is possible; one between Texas and Iran is not.
The fact that the attack originated not because of your government's decision to attack but because it failed to enforce its sovereignity, that's essentially Lebanese internal matter (until Lebanon officially admits it, at least). Everybody have any right to ignore it and lump all of Lebanon together in this. If it isn't done, it is simple because everybody concider it more profitable not to exercise this right to the fullest.

You want Lebanon to be a real country. not just in name? Own up. Accept responsibility and assume control over your territory. Examine your situation, speculate how your neighbours will react to your actions, and then pick the action that would benefit you the most. Stop figuring out what others should do different, try to see what you can do different.
If you want to simply "mind your own business", pick a country to occupy you and save you all that burden.

Sherri said...

tears for lebanon,

What Israel did (with weapons supplied to them by the United States)to the Shiite population of Lebanon and the country of Lebanon was a hugely disproportionate response to Hezbullah's acts in kidnapping soldiers.

How can the kidnapping of two soldiers by Hezbullah, actions of a militant group that consists of 3000 or 4000 members, justify Israel:

(1)causing the deaths of over 1200 innocent civilians in Lebanon, 45% of whom were children, and many more injured (4000 or more),

(2)instituting over 7000 airstrikes on a civilian population,

(3)aiming over 2000 missiles from warships on a civilian population,

(4) causing over 15 billion dollars in damage to Lebanon from their invasion (including extensive bombing of civilian infrastructure),

(5)taking military actions that resulted in southern villages and southern suburbs in Beirut being bombed to rubble,

(6)displacing over 1 million people, who were forced to flee for their lives with only their clothes on their back,

(7) using cluster bombs, white phosphorous, and vacuum bombs on civilian populations, in violation of the Geneva Convention.

What happened in Lebanon is inhumanity at its ugliest.

Will Israel and the United States and the rest of the world just let Lebanon have a chance to rebuild their country now and stop inflicting death and destruction on their civilian populations?

My hopes and prayers are for a lasting peace in Lebanon.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Item 7 makes no sense.

Cluster bombs and WP are not violations of the Geneva convention, and there is no such thing as a vacuum bomb.

BTW, are you honest enough to mention Hezbolla's violations of the Geneva Convention?

IMBch said...

Sherri, again you seem out of context. Look at who started the ACTS OF WAR. In a WAR there are casualties. And as regards your comments "7000 airstrikes on a civilian population" and "aiming over 2000 missiles from warships on a civilian population" causing the death of "over 1200 innocent civilians", it gives a ratio of less than 0.2 civilian per air/missile strike... Hardly a "good" performance or a justification of labelling Israel's attack as war crime. Look at it also from the other side and you will see that what Hezbollah has done was against the interests of both Israel and Lebanon.

Shmulik said...


Vacuum-bombs? I think you mean fuel-air bombs. Trust me (or open wikipedia and read about it), if such weapons were used in civilian areas than no villages would remain (nor would the villagers themselves). This things were used in Chechnia (IIRC) and I don't remember you saying "inhumanity at its ugliest" about them (or Saddam liberal use of mustard gas on kurds) I wonder why??
A very large percent of israeli soldiers KIA died INSIDE lebanese villages. Why would we need to risk their lives if we could just drop FAE (or similiar weapons)on the villages??
Another thing is "proportion". Please open the Geneva conventions or any other legal/moral document and find out if it claims what extent of war is legal for X provocation. No such thing.
There is a point of not causing excessive collateral damage in civilian areas while destroying legitimate military targets inside civilian populations. For example, nuking a city to kill a single enemy sniper is disproportionate. As I understand there are no real rules about what is proportionate and what is not. I may be biased (I am israeli), but from what I read about past wars (former Yugoslavia, Chechnia and Iraq for example) israel is much more careful (let alone in comparison to how most arab countries fight).
I can easily understand most lebanese wouldn't agree to my previous paragraph.
War is a horrible thing, and that's is exactly why it should be a last resort.
You can't perpetrate an act of war (like july 12th) and hope to walk away unscathed. It's even more baffling to build a hugh unguided rocket arsenal that can only hit cities, threaten to use it, use it and than cry about war-crimes.
I can only hope that from the tragedy of this war a new and beter future will emerge for both Lebanon and Israel (though I am not optimistic).

Dimitry said...

Gotta love how all the people (coughsherricought) who bring both the death tolls and the numbers of bombardements, and use them both as proof to Israel's brutality against civilians, fail to see that those figures combined are the best rebuttal of their claim.

chuck said...


i think u fail to see the big picture here.
u r trying so hard to make an equation of:
2 kidnaped soldiers = airstrikes, clouster bombs, destroying lebanon etc...

well, this is not the equation.

the 2 kidnapped soldiers were not a one small incident that hisballa took.
hisballa has been operating in south lebanon since the day Israeli army left the lebanese ground in 2000.
since then it has been arming itself, building bunkers right across the fence infront of Israeli patrols (which did nothing but observe them), built bunkers inside villages inside houses (yes, where civilian people live),planted land mines, planted lots and lots of artilery, katyusha rockets and long range rockets (which by the way, each rocket beside it's war head contains thousands of small bullets for more colateral damage, that is in order of wounding as many people as posible),
and building itself also politically in lebanon, and if that wasn't enough, hisballa is also operating inside the palestinian territories, inciting the palestinians to act against Israel, and supporting them with weapons, working mainley within the tanzim and the el-aqza militias in the territories (these militias also sent wemen and children for suicide bombings inside Israel).

since the day Israel withdrew from lebanon in 2000 hisballa has not only killing 8 soldiers and kidnapped 2 , but also kidnapped and killed 3 soldiers just a few days after the Israeli withdrawl, kidnapped an Israeli civilian (ex military, tenenbaum), and killing more Israeli soldiers every now and then.

the generals in the Israeli army were verry optimistic after the Israeli withdrawl from lebanon, there is a theory that has been said by them, that the rockets that hisballa was collecting will eventually have no purpose and they will rote on the border.

today we se this was over optimistic. people acuse those generals for not actting sooner, maybe getting a different resault then the resault of this recent war.

so sherri, please try to see the whole picture and not look only at the small picture, saying "Israel started this war only because 2 soldiers were kidnaped".
ok ?

tears for lebanon said...

I find myself so tired with having to make repetitive seems that whenever a valid point is made that favors Lebanon, it is discounted. Instead of the Israelis acknowledging that indeed valid points are made that do not shed well on Israel, then blame again is put on the innocent middle east news addict comments that bad things happen to good people if they sit idly by....and zalame's comment about evil can triumph when good men do now it is the fault of the 'good people' in Lebanon for Israel's unjust response?!?!

hmmm...according to the Israeli responses to my comments over the last few weeks...death and destruction is the fault of Hezbollah, it is the fault of the civilians who did not leave their villages when the leaflets dropped, it is the fault of the Lebanese government for not yet taking full control of their country after only being in power about a year, and now I am getting quotes of the fault/blame being placed on 'the good people'

But nowhere...NOWHERE is there any acknowledgement that Israel could ALSO be in the wrong for the atrocities that were indeed commited as stated above...bridges, roads, airport, cities and villages that Hez does not reside in, blocking sea ports, and air ways...and again i will risk sounding like a tape recorder.....the killings of innocent children and civilians....

Dimitry...using your own words, I ask Israel to 'own up''re trying to debate 'propotion'??....the number of deaths and the number of dollars needed for rebuilding speak volumes more than words, and in my opinion, regardless of how much worse it could have was pretty damn bad, so congrats u win the debate.
yeah I think I need to add a 'coughdimitrycough' here.

imbch...sherri is not the only one calling Israel's attack as a war crime...from my is Amnesty International....and need I remind you that this is the belief of so many around the world.

Why is it that most Israeli...and some Lebanese on this site will point out the ridiculous and never acknowledge the obvious....Is Israel NEVER wrong?

So many of us(Lebanese) have acknowledged the wrong doings of Hez, we have recognized that the government was unable to rule the entire land in its first year of new birth...and we have acknowledged that it was unfair for the Israelis to have to head into bomb shelters....I just want to know why can't any of you just acknowledge the wrong doings of Israel....there have been so many to pick from....just pick one for crying out loud!

If you can not find any fault at all..then I have to believe the whole intention of you expressing your thoughts here on this 'lebanese blog' site verses on an Israeli blog...was just to piss off as many as you can.

Sherri...I agree with you, what happened in lebanon is indeed 'inhumanity at its ugliest' and I also believe that how you have been addressed here on this blog over the last weeks...has also been very ugly;I am sorry for that.

Shmulik said...

Tears for Lebanon

Do you wish me to say every air-strike and every artillery barrage were justified? off course not. Can I ensure you that no soldier is crazy and that no IDF officer is cruel? Off course not. However I do believe that the IDF does show high degre of restraint especially in comparison with other armies of the world. You can say that maybe it's not the goodness of Israel's heart, it's because we are a small country that depends on foreign aid and markets and we can't get away with the kind of tactics the russians for example can get away with. If you measure Israel's actions with impposible standards (not to hit civilians while fighting an organization that primarily fights from civilian areas) than we are indeed inhumane monsters. I do ask you to compare Israel's action in comparison to other nations.
BTW many targets that you are so incensed about are dual-use and sobecome legitmate targets (bridges and roads for example are used by innocent civilians but ALSO by HZB to bring reinforcments and move rockets from storage areas to firing positions in the south). You can question the wisdom of this tactic, that the damage in civilian lives, infrastructure,incitement of hatred and bad press is worse than the damage of letting some more rockets fall on Haifa but it doesn't make it "inhumanity at its ugliest".
It seem hard to accept for you (and I can see why) but Israelis acting in accordance to the laws of war, for example:
Geneva conventions 1949: "Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."
Hague declaration 1907: " Art. 25.
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are UNDEFENDED is prohibited.
Art. 26.
The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities."

I do belive that every mistake should be accounted for, and every soldier or officer that disregards the orders should be prosecuted in a court of law but This does NOT mean I believe the IDF as an organizatin is remotely in the same moral ground of the hizballah and the liks of it.
Sorry for such a long post.

chuck said...

tears for lebanon,

i'm not saying that Israel hasn't made mistakes. but the way u try to put it is that Israel has been trying to hurt as many civilians as possible, trying to ruin lebanon as much as it can and has no conciounce about it. and that's where u r wrong.

the fact is that Israel had shown a lot more willingness towards peace then lebanon did for the past years.
and i know that going towards peace was not easy for lebanon because first it needs to have peace within it self.
but Israel can't just let herself be hurt over and over agaain while doing nothing to protect itself and stoping hisballa from getting stronger, while the lebanese government is trying to build itself, and get strong enough to dismentel hisballa if a few more years.

so yes, Israel did make mistakes, and there will be a full investigation over this war. there r many people protesting right now for the impichment of both olmert and peretz and changing the chief of staff.

and that's more then i can say about lebanon and hisballa, that from what i see, won't be disarmed anytime soon, and even get's rearmed again by syria while the international takes it's time with the international force that is supposed to arrive.

Dimitry said...


What we're saying is that Israel's response wasn't "disproportionate" and "unjust". Destroying bridges, roads and airports - excuse me, but youre fingers are way too light on the a-t-r-o-c-i-t-i-e-s keys combination. Atrocities is what happends in Darfur. An atrocity was done in Hamma, Syria several decades ago. See the difference?

Here's the situation from Israeli prespective: from the last six years, it was viciously and unwarrantedly attacked from Lebanon. On July 12th, the kidnapping operation was the straw that broke the camel's back, and it decided to finally do something about it.
That decision was legitmate. As for the managing of the war - well, it was mostly a bloody farce, one stupidity piled on another, but whether by coincidence or not, the things that you mention aren't the problematic issues.

I don't think that IDF commanders should've worked with excel spreadsheets that showed the damage to Israel so they can inflict exactly x*this damage to Lebanon. I don't think that avoiding civilian casualties was at all possible, and in fact I think Israel has gone too far in that direction, and lost soldiers when by not bombing enemies that happened (yeah, bloody coincidence, it was) to be sorrounded by civilians. I'm not arguing about specific cases, because, you know, I have this tendency not to argue about things I don't know enough, and I have no idea about what Israel knew when it bombed target A and why B was being targeted. I'm arguing overall policy.

I think Israel was wrong in many things. They are simply not the things that you bring up.

Sherri said...


You are apparently defending the Israeli government's use of weapons, such as cluster bombs and white phosphorous against civilians.

I stated that the use of cluster bombs, white phosphorous, and vacuum bombs violated the Geneva Convention. I should have stated it violated humanitarian laws and constituted war crimes. I should clarify that international humanitarian law's central purpose is to limit, to the extent feasible, human suffering in times of armed conflict. This law is a body of rules and regulations, and includes the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two additional protocols of 1977 and customary law.

First, it has been reported that tens of thousands of cluster bombs were dropped by Israel on 285 sites, that includes many civilian villages, in south Lebanon, most within the last three days before the cease fire. Under international humanitarian law, any attack which employs a weapon which cannot be directed at a specific military objective is an indiscriminate attack, and therefore prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are attacks that do not attempt to distinquish between military targets and civilians or civilian objects. Humanitarian law experts consider the use of cluster bombs on civilian populations to constitute war crimes.

Cluster bombs scatter scores of bomblets, or submunitions, over a wide area, typically the size of one or two football fields. Many bomblets fail to explode on impact and are then left behind as explosive remnants of war, posing a threat to civilians similar to anti-personnel landmines. Cluster bombs have been found within and all around civilian villages in Southern Lebanon. Since the cease fire, numerous injuries and deaths have been reported from exploding cluster bombs. Deaths so far have included children playing, Lebanese soldirs trying to remove the cluster bombs, and at least one Israeli soldier.

Second, Amnesty International issued a report dated July 26, 2006(MDE 150702006), that indicated there were reports that Israel had used vacuum bombs in the conflict. Vacuum bombs ara a type of thermobaric weapon, also called fuel air explosives. This type of weapon introduces an aerosol cloud of volatile gases in the target area, which is then ignited to create a fireball that sucks air out of the atmosphere and produces lethal effects, such as severe burns and lung collapse, to individuals in the target area. They pose a danger to civilians and could be used in indiscriminate or other unlawful attacks.

Third, Amnesty International also reports (MDE 150702006) that Israel has used incendiary weapons, such as white phosphorous shells, in attacks in Lebanon.
White phosphorous causes superflous injury and unnecessary suffering and is prohibited by humanitarian law when used to target civilains and in indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks against civilians. Civilians admitted to hospitals with specific types of burns were identified as suffering from attacks by white phosphorous.

Besides the issue of whether the use violates general humanitarian law priciples, these weapons are specifically prohibited for use against civilians by Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the use of Incediary Weapons(a Protocol Additional to the 1980 UN Convention on the Prohibition or Restrictions on the use of Certain Conventional Weapons). And these laws also prohibit making any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by incendiary weapons. Israel is not a party to Protocol III, and it is not clear whether Protocol III is a part of customary law that does apply to Israel. The bottom line here is it is not clear whether Protocol III provisions apply to Israel. Regardless, general humanitarian law provisions, as previously discussed, prohibit their use against civilians.

Concerning your point that I do not address Hebullah's war crimes, the reason I brought this up to begin with in response to this post had to do with the issue of the appropriateness of Israel's response to Hezbullah's abducting of two soldiers. The issue I was addressing was not Hezbullah's war crimes.

Concerning Hezbullah, Amnesty International reports that the use of Katyusha rockets and longer-range missiles against Israeli cities violates the prohibtion on indiscriminate attacks, even when aimed at legitimate targets, such as military bases, because of the inherent inaccuracy of these weapons at long distances. (MDE150702006). There is also a discussion about whether Hezbullah was using civilians as human shields, but later reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have found little evidence to support this.

There has been so much focus on Israel's war crimes issue, because of the extent of the damage to property and the toll taken on human life in Lebanon.

Sherri said...


Taking the numbers of air strikes and missile attacks and mathematically determining a ratio of civilians killed per attack does not even begin to address the war crimes issue. Such ratios have absolutely no relevance to the issue of whether war crimes were committed.

The basic issues are whether civilians or civilian objects were directly targeted, whether attacks were indiscriminate (attacks which do not attempt to distinquish between military targets and civilians or civilian objects), and whether attacks have a disproportionate impact on civilian or civilian objects.

In analyzing the issue of civilian deaths and damage, Amnesty International states in part in a August 24 Report (MDE 180072006):

" During more than four weeks of ground and aerial bombardment of Lebanon by the Israeli armed forces, the country's infrastructure suffered destruction on a catastrophic scale. Israeli forces pounded buildings into the ground, reducing entire neighborhoods to rubble and turning villages and towns into ghost towns, as their inhabitants fled the bombardments. Main roads, bridges, and petrol stations were blown to bits. Entire families were killed in air strikes on their homes or in their vehicles while fleeing the aerial assaults on their villages. Scores lay buried beneath the rubble of their houses for weeks, as the Red Cross and other rescue workers were prevented from accessing the area by continuing Israeli strikes. The hundreds of thousands of Lebnanese who fled the bombardment now face the danger of unexploded munitions as they head home.

The Israeli Air Force launched more than 7000 air attcks on about 7000 targets in Lebanon between 12 July and 14 August, while the Navy conducted an additional 2500 bombardments.(1) The attacks, though widespread, particularly concentrated on certain areas. In addition to the human toll-an estimated 1183 fatalities, about one third of whom have been children.(2)4054 people injured and 970,000 Lebanese people displaced (3) the civilian infrastructure was severely damaged. The Lebanese government estimates that 31 "vital points" (such as airports, ports, water and sewage treatmentplants, electrical facilities) have been completely or partially destroyed, as have around 80 bridges and 94 roads. (4) More than 25 fuel stations (5) and around 900 commercial enterprises were hit. The number of residential properties, offices and shops completely destoyed exceeds 30000 (6) Two government hospitals -in Bint Jbeil and in Meis ai-Jebel-were completely destroyed in Israeli attacks and three others were seriously damaged.(7)

In a country of fewer than four million inhabitants, more than 25 percent of them took to the roads as displaced persons. An estimated 500,000 people sought shelter in Beirut alone, many of them in parks and public spaces, without water or washing facilities.

Amnesty International delegates in south Lebanon reported that in village after village the pattern was similar: the streets, especially main streets, were scarred with artillery craters along their length. In some cases cluster bomb impacts were identified. Houses were singled out for precision-guided missile attack and were destroyed, totally or partially as a result. Business premises, such as supermarkets or food stores and auto service stations and petrol stations were targeted, often with precision-guided munitions and artillery that started fires and destroyed their contents. With the electricity cut off and food and other supplies not coming into the villages, the destruction of supermarkets and petrol stations played a crucial role in forcing local residents to leave. The lack of fuel also stopped residents from getting water, as water pumps requie electricity or fuel-fed generators.

Israeli government spokespeople have insisted that they were targeting Hizbullah positions and support facilities, and that damage to civilian infrastructure was incidental or resulted from Hizbullah using the civilian population as a "human shield." However, the pattern and scope of the attacks, as well as the number of civilian casualties and the amount of damage sustained, makes the justification ring hollow. The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than "collateral damage"-incidental damage to civilians or civilian property resulting from targeted military objectives.

Statements by Israeli militray officials seem to confirm that the destruction of the infrastructure was indeed a goal of the military campaign. .....

The widespread destruction of apartments, houses, electricity and water services, roads, bridges, factories and ports, in addition to several statements by Israeli officials, suggest a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to get them to turn against Hizbullah. Israeli attacks did not diminish, nor did their pattern appear to change, even when it became clear that the victims of the bombardment were predominantly civilians, which was the case from the first days of the conflict. "

Who started the war does not justify war crimes.

Shmulik said...


allow me to scoff a bit about the neutrality and lack of bias in amnesty international reports. The main problem is that they usually accept almost all reports from Lebanon with un-critical eye, and the lebanese have a quite clear agenda in this. My proof is simple. Let me ask: How can a small NGO (200 workers world wide) manage two document 7000 air-attacks, 2500 naval attacks,30,000 offices, 285 sites that were examined by experts to find proof for cluster bomb use and so on. All of this in less than two weeks!! Amnesty admits it mainly uses LOCAL sources for it's reports. Do you recall Seniora for example making a dramatic report about a bombing in which 40 civilians were killed and several hours later the number was reduced to one (still tragic)??

chuck said...


ok, u win.
u r right, Israel has made war crimes against humanity and should be punished for these crimes.
and so did hisballa, created war crimes against humanity and should be punished.

i'll tell u what,
when nasralla will be taken to international court, or at least be judged by a lebanese court for it's crimes then Israel will send it's generals to be judged for their crimes.

hows that for a fair trade ?

by the way, i hope u noticed that i wrote only for nasralla to be judged by lebanese court, and not the Israeli generals being judged by Israeli court, that's because Israel already judge it's leaders and generals and put them under invetigation.
i'd like to see that happened in lebanon...

Shmulik said...


Amnesty is not exactly neutral. For example:"There is also a discussion about whether Hezbullah was using civilians as human shields, but later reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have found little evidence to support this".
If I could find in Al-Jazeera (not exactly a zionist propoganda outlet), a picture of a burned truck with rocket launchers on top 3 meters from a wall of a house, the great and honest reporters of AI couldn't?? The IDF has released dozens of flight videos showing air-strikes against launchers inside villages but yet those great researchers in amnesti couldn't find the evidence? Let's recall that at the same time they claim to have managed to asses 285!! seperate sites hit with thousnds of cluster-bombs (with the military experts needed to prove this off course). I wonder if they have managed to confirm the use of the dark-side and photon torpedos by the IDF or we will have to wait for the next report.

Sherri said...


You keep comparing Israel to what other countries do, and state Israel acts better than other countries have. That really is not the issue. There are international laws that have rules to protect innocent civilians in wars.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have each issued a dozen or more documents on the conflict (found on their websites)and both agencies believe there is evidence of war crimes, against both Israel and Hezbullah.

The violations alleged against Israel are more extensive. It is my understanding that if the issues go forward, there is first some type of an investigation and legal proceedings, which could be in an international court arena. These are issues of international law. However, the issues may not be pursued. It is my understanding it is largely up to the countries affected, Lebanon and Israel, whether to pursue the issues. Since violations have been alleged by each side to the conflict, the countries may not push the cases forward.

Amnesty International makes the following comments about the need for an international investigation:

Over the many years of the conflict between Hizbullah and Israel, both sides have repeatedly committed grave violations of international humanitarian law without any accountability. The Israeli authorities have investigated a few incidents, and have stated that they are still investigating some of the incidents in the latest outbreak of hostilities, but the methods and outcomes of these investigations have never been properly disclosed. They fall far short of the standards required. No investigation on violations of international humanitarian law by Hizbullah is known to have been conducted by the Lebanese authorities. If respect for rules of war is ever to be taken seriously, a proper investigation of their violation by both parties of the recent conflict is imperative (MDE180072006)

Concerning your comments that Amnesty international is biased, Human Rights Watch has made similar findings. Since the cease fire, there are officials all over Lebanon assessing the damages. The information about cluster bombs being used, tens of thousands in 285 sites over the last three days before the cease fire, was a figure reported in the news media in the United States, over the past few days (not Amnesty International). In the television report I viewed, a map was shown identifying the sites hit.


You make comments essentially defending Israel's use of force in the conflict and the necessity for it, pointing out that Hezbullah started this and did many prior hostile acts as well. I want to point out this was not one-sided, that Israel engaged in hostile acts against Hezbullah, as well, such as their own kidnappings of Hezbullah officials and regularly violating Lebabon's air space.

I understand there was a continuing conflict between Hezbullah and Israel. But I feel that trying diplomacy with the Lebanese government or the United Nations before striking back in the way Israel did would have been the best way to try to resolve the issues.

In this conflict, more civilians died than combatants. There is something terribly wrong with that, when the majority of fatalities in a war are women, children, and other innocent civilians.

I just hope and pray the cease fire holds, that Lebanon and Israel can resolve their remaining issues diplomatically (the Sheeba Farms issue, the issue of returning the kidnapped Israeli soldiers who everyone seems to have forgotten about, the issue of the return of Lebanese prisoners Israel holds, the issue of Israel turning over maps for the landmines they left in Lebanon from the 1982 Occupation), that Lebanon can restrain and by dialogue work out their issues with Hezbullah, that the people of Lebanon stay united and work together to rebuild their country, and that there will be an end to fighting between Israel and Lebanon.

This is a lot to hope and pray for, but it can happen. If parties truly want peace and take the steps needed to achieve it, it can become reality.

GD said...

Just discovered this blog. Re. desperate and stupid: a rant.

Truly the Internet empower anyone to express his or her opinion, if it can be considered one – sic

You should have the decency to remove your misleading and misspelled – This blog was created to honour the memory of heroes of all the Lebanese sects who were assassinated for their patriotic stands.... Over and above " sects " – resic

Lirun said...


international humantarian law is not the only body of international law.. neither are the rules regarding war.. there are many other international legal concepts at play here.. and you could analyse the lebanese israeli relationship under international law ad nausium..

your statements in relation to ignoring what other countries in our region do are inappropriate - because treaties do not embody all that is relevant to international law.. they are merely one part.. one must also examin the other body of international law - which is known as customary international law..

here we look at how the countries in the region act and the extent to which they feel bound by such norms..

most of the treaties that you rely upon in your comments were not written by the middle eastern states.. and those that subscribe to such treaties generally fail to apply them because in many ways they are largely out of context in our region..

i suggest you stop attempting to assert your notions of what americans refer to as christian-judeo values (i think that is the term) and start to genuinely consider the conduct of our region..

the other bloggers above - citing incidents in syria and jordan where large scale massacres were undertaken for the purposes of internal security are entirely relevant.. while deplorable and revolting - this nonetheless demonstrates how this region acts to achieve security..

how dare you keep silent in relation to those events and how dare you not seek the prosecution of those leaders and continue to say that israel is not entitled to use its best efforts to juggle the humantiarian dilemma with the security techniques of its very region..

i suppose under your theory - israel's only acceptable course of action during the past few months was to lodge complaints with the UN.. given that HA is entrenched in civillian areas - according to you israel had no right to defend itself because that would endanger civillians.. so instead - by your theory - israel should have lodged 3000 complaints and just copped the missiles and bit its tongue..

sherri - you continue to apply a very limited understanding to a very broad and deep fact scenario that you fail to understand..

i suggest you do some more research because your assertions of fact are way off..

genuinely wishing peace to our region and hoping we never again have to examine these issues..


Sherri said...


The Amnesty International documents and the Human Rights Watch documents analyze the issues of international humanitarian law that legally apply to Israel and Lebanon.

They are relevant, assuming Lebanon and Israel desire to comply with their international obligations.

Newsreporters in the US have stated the war crimes issues may not go forward, because generally it is the country impacted that pushes the issues forward. Since there are issues on both sides, they may not be pursued. However, I believe the United Nations can itself investigate war crimes and I think Israel has already been referred for an investigation.

How Israel acted compared to other countries in the region in other conflicts is not relevant to the war crimes issue.

You act indignant that I remain silent about past Jordan and Syria actions, which you refer to as internal massacres. This is not a forum for those issues, which I do not have information about and consider irrelevant.

I do not make decisions about what news is covered by US News Stations, such as CNN. For whatever reason, the US News Stations covered the recent Israeli Lebanon conflict 24/7. I have never seen a prior war covered in the US to the extent this war was covered. The Iraq War, which the US is a party to, is hardly covered by our news stations at all. African wars, and other world conflicts, receive very little news coverage in the US.

I find it ironic that you criticize me for saying Israel should have tryed to resort to diplomatic methods to resolve these issues before its military actions here, when I have read prior posts by you saying essentially the same thing. (I never said Israel had no right to defend herself, just that it was disproportionate and an overreaction.) It is OK for you to criticize Israel, but not outsiders.

If peace is truly desired, there must be more attempts to resolve issues by dialogue and diplomatically by all parties to the conflicts. This is just common sense, not a Christian Judeo value judgment.

And parties must set aside their feelings of hate for each other. This may be very difficult to do, but if you and others genuinely wish peace for the region, than I think resolving these issues is imperative. If parties cannot let go of the past and negative ideas and hates and fears, how can they engage in meaningful dialogue, begin to trust each other, and move towards a lasting peace?

I continue to hope and pray for peace in Lebanon and israel.

Lirun said...

i have never said that israel is beyond criticism but i find it constantly surprising just how far your posts go with their one-sidedness..

how you decided that customary international law is suddenly irrelevant..

how you decide that the media should dictate the application of international legal principles.. and that journalists should those to judge our actions..

i struggle to follow the cohesion in an argument that conveniently disregards any issue that conflicts with it..

conducting this way is not debate.. its a sermon..

i believe in the power of dialog.. i believe that it was underexplored in these circumstances.. but not just by israel.. i have also said that i am unable to judge the events given that history always does so better in hindsight once the dillusions of media fog clear up..

i think the great thing about this blog is that we have a rare opportunity to gague opinions on both sides without some strange gatekeeping of US-Euro media giants..

i am unclear as to why you endeavour so valiantly to gatekeep the issues you consider - here in the free world of this blog..

where even moderated comments - are still clearly showing us all sides..

wishing for peace for our region and for you sherri - wherever it is that you are

we need to look forward

Dimitry said...


If you don't dispute Israel's right to self defence, what actions would you concider acceptable by Israel to carry out?

And haven't you so far heard over and over and over again why trying to solve this one diplomatically would've been counter productive?

tears for lebanon said...

Dimitry defined by act of extreme brutality, cruelty, or outrageous wickedness;(in pl.) a series of shocking, cruel, and abominable deeds........ATROCITY in Lebanon?....yep it applies here too.

You see Dimitry it is also subjective; and you don't get the priveledge alone to decide what consistutes as an ATROCITY. Sorry Dimitry, 'you' have not been elected by anyone in this Lebanese forum to set the standard of what is considered maybe you should consider getting off that high horse.

It is correct for you to cite Dafur, but I am also correct to cite the actions by Israel against Lebanon as an ATROCITY. You don't have to agree...but that doesn't make it not so.

You are right about one is easy for my fingers to type ATROCITY....because in my opinion, it occured!

As for the rest of your text to state that you believe that Israel went too far in attempting to spare civilian lives....well what can I say to that?; it goes to show what kind of 'man' you you think more innocent children and civilians should have been massacred....what kind of person says that?!?!...I could go on...but really I have decided it not worth my time to attempt to dialog with you anymore...your colors have been revealed...and it is just damn ugly.

You appear to believe that you and your Israeli brothers are superior than others and hold the notion that the innocent Lebanese children that were being bombed and massacred do not hold the same value as the Israeli soldiers geared for combat....and you can not see the atrocity in that??????

chuck said...


avoiding civilian casualties is something that u must over do, in any kind of war. so i disagree with u on that.
i want to believe that my army does not attack civilians when it's not neccesery. otherwise we act just like hisballa, attack indiscreminently, just to inflict pain to the other side.

tears for lebanon,

"avoiding civilian casulaties" can be a verry nice slogan, but it's harder to do in reality. war is never sterilised. sometimes people that shouldn't get hurt do get hurt. especially when u make a war inside civilian population.

for example, soldiers shuting at another group of soldiers from the same army because of bad comunication.
or a tank that runs over soldiers in the same army because the tank comanders weren't informed well.

if u compare the number of attacks made in the civilian territories, both by air strikes and by foot soldiers, and the number of days that this fighting was going on, u can see that the number of civilian casualties could have been 10 times higher then it was.
so maybe some precaution were taken, u can say not enough, but u have to agree that there were certain standards that the army had set to itself about hitting civilian areas.
for example, bierut could have been totaly destroyed, and yet u can see now that only the dahya area was hit for being a hisballa command center.
so it wasn't all about hitting civilians.

i can give u another example of civilian casualties.
a man was shot because he was spoted pointing some thing that looked like a rifle towards soldiers. what would u do when something like that happenes to u when u know u r in a hostile area and u might be shot in any minute. would u let this guy do what he plans on doing to u ? or will u take the risk of geting hit and let him be ?

so as i was saying, war is never sterile. yet, u can set urself a certain standard as for when and where u should act, and how many civilian casualties u can risk hitting in order to save u'r life or to save u'r own civilian life.

am i wrong ?

Dimitry said...


What I'm saying is that Israel avoided civilian casualties even when neccesery. I don't, and never did, advocate wholesale slaughter, thank you.


Allow me to quote you: the atrocities that were indeed commited as stated above...bridges, roads, airport, cities and villages that Hez does not reside in, blocking sea ports, and air ways

Bridges? BRIDGES?! In the name of the Great Green Arkleseizure, bridges? And it's not like you're from Scandinavia or something and this is the worst thing you can imagine apart from killing a whale - your country was torn apart by a bloody civil war not so long ago, and now you talk about bridges?
You know, I bet nobody talking about Darfur would bother mentioning the bridges and roads destroyed there, certenly not as one of the leading items. Wonder why. Might be they have more important things on their minds.

Same applies to all infrastructure and blockade issues. I'm sorry, but it's infrastructure. And blockades. As for population centers that had nothing to do with HA, are you talking about places like Marwaheen, from the post "In the words of the villagers" in this very blog? Anyway, how many people lived in those places? What percent of them died? Do you doubt for a moment Israel could've brought this percent close to 100, if only chose to (not that I'm saying it should've, I'm talking technical capability)?

Look, you may concider being mugged on the street to be an atrocity (and apperantly, you do - I mean, bridges), but from my experience, for most people the word "atrocity" has very strong meaning. It lets them express that what happened wasn't just several destreoyed bridges, but thousands of people massacared in cold blood. Most people concider those two fundamentaly different, and use our over-analysed A-word to emphasize exactly that fundamental difference. And the latter most emphatically did not happen during this war.

As for the rest... My, what a simple, black-and-white world you live in. Is it fun, having simple equations like "dead civilians = evil", and not bothering beyond that?
I believe that IDF's first and foremost duty is to defend Israel and Israelis - and that includes themselves. So when there's a situation where soldiers are under threat that covers behind civilians, and its the choice of either IDF's soldiers or Lebanese combatants + civilians... Well, there shouldn't be a choice at all. It's not a matter of superiority or inferiority - the Lebanese army and state should equally choose the lives of its citizens over the lives Israelis, given similar choice.
Does that make me a bad person in your view? So be it. On the other hand, in your world self defence cannot be applied against a person who is shooting behind a child. It becomes a winning strategy. I have a problem with that.

And, and I'd appericiate it if you bother to read what I'm writing. I don't advocate simply killing for killing's sake. I don't advocate massacares. What I'm saying that civilians who are in a battlezone cannot expect the enemy soldiers to sacrifise their lives for them. Is that really so rediculus a concept?

tears for lebanon said...

If you are going to quote me...then quote me in full text. From my original post which I then paraphrased in my second text, as a reference...I said:

"If it is the belief that Hez is to be blamed for all destruction and for the Lebanese casualities by using Lebanese as human shields...then can u explain to me how Hez is responsible for the destruction of Lebanon's bridges, roads, airport, and bombing of christian east beirut, let alone the various other villages where no shia or hez exist? Can you also explain how Hez is responsible for the prohibition of fuel ships to enter the sea port to aid the hospitals in need for generator support?
The capture of 2 Israeli soldiers does not justify the atrocities that we witnessed by Israel."

If you have been reading any of my posts then you know that when I said IF Hez is responsible for the 'Lebanese casualities by using Lebanese as human shields' ...was said with tongue in cheek, because I do not believe Hez is to be blamed for these deaths...It was IDF who dropped the bombs, it is the IDF who massacred, it is the IDF who committed...yep you guessed it...the atrocities!

If you want to focus on bridges alone instead of my full text then certainly you can make it appear that I mourn bridges more than the massacre of so many at the hands of Israel. So be it...think I mourn bridges if that is what makes you feel better.

As far as reading your posts.... apparently you have a very selective memory as well, even when comes to your own your last post you state:
"I don't advocate massacares. What I'm saying that civilians who are in a battlezone cannot expect the enemy soldiers to sacrifise their lives for them. Is that really so rediculus a concept?"

No that would not be a ridiculous concept..except that is not what you wrote....what you did write was:
"I don't think that avoiding civilian casualties was at all possible, and in fact I think Israel has gone too far in that direction, and lost soldiers when by not bombing enemies that happened (yeah, bloody coincidence, it was) to be sorrounded by civilians."

I do not expect you to sacrafice your life...but I do expect you to spare the innocent their life.
You state that Israel went too far....
So which is it dimitry? You don't advocate masacres OR you do by thinking Israel should have just 'bombed' your enemy, regardless of the surrounding civilians?

Dimitry,to me it is not 'fun' as you asked, but the above question really is black and white me it is gray when you try to find justification for your wrong doings.

Now if you will excuse me...I have to go pray for a bridge now.

tears for lebanon said...


Thank you for your comment to state:
"so as i was saying, war is never sterile. yet, u can set urself a certain standard as for when and where u should act, and how many civilian casualties u can risk hitting in order to save u'r life or to save u'r own civilian life.

am i wrong ?"

No are not wrong. I understand the risk factor....I would hope most would take into the same into consideration (the lives of innocent) when comparing the risk of your own life as well.

Dimitry said...


Please don't confuse matters. There are two parts here - first about your extremly liberal use of the word "atrocities", and second about what Israel actually did.

When I made the "atocities" note, I was spaking specifically about the bridges et cetra comment. So, let's clarify this little issue once and for all: do you, or do you not, concider the word "atrocity" applicable to actions such as destruction of infrastructure and blockades?

I also dare claim that Israel's sporadic bombings, with constant warnings beforehand, can hardly be concidered atrocities, but I concede that this issue is subjective (unlike, you know, bridges).

Now, to the more general topic. Obviously not everything is covered by the human shield part. Infrastructure was destroyed and blockades were imposed to limit HA's ability to resupply (this was particularly relevant when the boneheads that decide Israeli policy thought this war could be won only from the air). Also, those actions were legitimate way to apply pressure on the Lebanese government and people, imho. As for attacks about "villages without any HA in"... Did you read the post (in this very blog) I cited in my previous post?

Let's now analyse my "different" statements. So, there's a situation in which IDF soldiers are under fire. Eliminating that source of fire by artillery or from the air will cause casualties among civilians that were spotted near the source of fire. Not doing so would result in causalties among IDF soliders when they take out that position on the ground.

This is the scenario that I was talking about. And this scenario happened several times in this war, and at times the choice of the Israeli command was to avoid using artillery/air. And that is exactly sacrifising one side's soldiers to save the lives of the other side's civilians. That is exactly going too far in the direction of avoiding civilian casualties. Nope, no contradiction, or even difference, that I can spot.

Similar conciderations can (and should) be applied to attacking rocket launchers even if civilians can get hurt, because otherwise, it's sacrifising Israeli civilians for those Lebanese ones.

Do you disagree with the statement that Israel managed to limit casualties among civilian population much more than most other armies in similar situation? In comparison to, say, Russia Chechnya? NATO in Serbia? US in Iraq?

tears for lebanon said...

I am not trying to confuse you nor the situation...let me try to clarify.

Do I believe that destroying a bridge or a road is an atrocity...
Dimitry, if it is a single action to do this, then no, I don't view this as an atrocity.

However Dimitry, I so wish you could see this situation as I is not the bridges or the roads themselves that I am so upset about...they are merely concrete structures...but these bridges and roads were the pathways needed, intact, for the villagers to escape the hell that was falling from the skies. These bridges and roads were never so important as they were during those 34 days...and when destroyed, their purpose to lead out and connect to safe grounds, left many in even worse despair. Can you imagine the desperation of a family fleeing their home, knowing they only have a short time to get to a 'safe haven', having no choice but to drive on a road, to cross a bridge, all the while fearing that a fighter jet might mistaken them for the'enemy'...and then reach a point in the road, to find it bombed, destroyed, and realize that you have to stay in a car, still fearing the jet above, and hoping you can find alternate route that is not destroyed....all in attempt to save the lives of your most valued possessions; your family. Or imagine an ambulance driver attempting to help the most needy in their dire state, and finding themseves in the same situation, coming upon 'detour' upon 'detour'. It is then that you realize how valuable these 'infrastructures' are...not because of 'what' they are, but because of their function. Dimitry, there are no bomb shelters to hide under in Lebanon, the villagers HAD to use these bridges and roads, to save their lives.

Maybe I should have clarified this in my earlier goes along the same lines why i was so upset that the sea port was doing this, Israel left many hospitals in need for fuel which was so badly needed to support their generators...the AUB Medical Center made a plea for help in this area. It was not the blockade of the seaport that made me irate, it was the subsequent consequences to the the the dying.

So to answer you; as a single incident, bombing a bridge is not an atrocity, however collectively with all that I mentioned above and in combinbation with the other bombings that I mentioned with my previous post, to me Dimitry, is atrocious.

To comment on your daring claim of 'sporadic' bombings, on those who were given 'constant warnings beforehand'...Dimitry, what good are leaflet warnings if you don't have a road to drive on to get out? And Dare I mention that there was a bombing on those who did heed the warning too?

To answer you regarding the villages/cities that I mentioned....
no, i was not refering to the village that was mentioned 'here in this blog'.
I was referring to the bombing of the Lebanese army's base in Al-Jamhour, in east of Beirut, there were reports of killing several and wounding many at that area. Another is the bombing of
Byblos, a historic city north of Beirut. And yet another, a church nonetheless, in Rashaya al-Wadi. Also,Tyre, a mostly sunni populated area was also bombed. My sources are from many arenas; the news, such as CNN, international newspapers and also from other blog forums as well. I can not say that my own eyes are witnesses, however I do not have any reason to doubt the info....c'mon Dimitry, be honest, you were hoping I was going to cite reuters as my source, weren't you? ;)

Lastly, for me to comment on Israel's 'mangement of limitations' to Lebanese civilians casualities in comparison to other poorly managed attempts of the countries you state....well I can not...that would be entirely too long of a discussion...there are many factors to be considered ...and I definitely believe that you and I would not agree. I do understand that you believe that Israel has attempted to limit the number, but you also feel that this crisis could not have been settled diplomatically...that is where we really differ. I believe the best attempt to limit the number of civilian casualities (on both sides)...would have been to try diplomatic talks with the Lebanese government or the UN first. If this would have been attempted...and was a success...that would have been the best managed practice of all!

Dimitry, how I do wish I could make you understand how I feel...sorry for the long text. Good night.

Sherri said...

The human stories are heartbreaking.

The man who lost five children, his wife who was 4 months pregnant, his mother, and his brother. All with one missile attack from Israel. He has one relative left alive, a three year old little girl, Laura, who had darted outside right before the missile attack. She kept trying to hug the picture of her mother. She is told they are all dead and that Israel killed them.

Scenes from a village in the south and journalists finding elderly people trapped in their houses. They were without water and food for days. The journalists helped transport the trapped and sick from their destroyed homes and villages.

The reports of people being bombed and killed in convoys of vehicles as they try to flee from their homes. They were warned by Israel to leave their homes and they are trying to leave,as they die.

Ambulances rushing the injured and dying (those injured from Israeli missile attacks) being bombed on the way to the hospital.

Two hospitals in southern villages being bombed and completely destroyed.

Qana, where Jesus performed his first miracle, turning water into wine at a wedding. The site of a massacre of mostly women and children (approx. 30)seeking shelter in the basement of a building that was bombed by Israel.

A Hezbullah official's home was bombed, killing him and his entire family, his wife, and twelve children ranging in age from one to eighteen.

The deliberate bombing of thousands of homes and businesses.
Many villages and neighborhoods turned into nothing but rubble. I watched a news clip of people walking in the south Beirut suburbs. Some people could not even identify where there houses had been. There was nothing but rubble left of their homes.

chuck said...

do u really want me to bring the Israeli side here ?
i just don't think that there is enough room here to write it all...

Dimitry said...


Ok, now your point makes more sense, but I'm afraid I don't really concede it. On the bottom line - eventually, everybody who wanted to did escape. It means there were ways. The risk of bombing? I think there was exactly one convoy bombed (probably a mistake, although I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of explosive cargo or at least information about the existance of such) - I'm sorry, but everyday car accidents are are probably a bigger risk.
While the fear probably was great enough, it was probably in no proportion to the real danger. I would still prefer to reserve the word "atrocity" to things harsher. There are quite enough in our world.

As for your examples for settlments... Tyre was the source of Katysha attacks on Haifa, therefore as valid a target as they get. The military base - was it one of the radar installations used in the attack on the Israeli ship? I'm afraid I have no info about the other examples. However, please note - none of the sources you stated would - or rather, could - bring the reason for those bombings. The fact that they didn't bring a reason didn't mean there wasn't a justified one. And Tyre here is an excellent example (despite the reason being avilable to anyone who bothered).

tears, diplomatic talks with the Lebanese government? What for? They very quickly declared they have no responsibility over the situation. They made no promises to rein in rouge elements in their society, and release the prisoners. That makes them either powerless and pointless, or effecitve compliant in the attacks. And when Siniora stated "well, we didn't want it, but since they're there, let's talk about releasing some murdereds of Lebanese origins..." - I'm sorry, was this supposed to generate goodwill? Talking to the UN? I'm sorry? Did the UN hold the Israeli prisoners?
The only effective only talks could've been - directly or indirectly - only with HA. I mean, yes, Israel could've talked to Siniora, UN, Kim Jong Ill, Pete Jones Junior, NYC or a random humoursly shapred potato - but unless it was merely a method to negotiate indirectly with HA, all of those would've been equally pointless.
At this stage, one cannot help but be stuck by a deja vu. That's right, Israel did it the previous time soldiers were kidnapped. The obvious conclusion? Method appears to work, and come with no significant price attached. The result? July twelth, two oh oh six. Do you really think another such "success" would've brought anything but the next attack?

Israel has a responsibily toward its citizens, and that includes soldiers. It cannot - it has no right - to advertises the fact that every bozo that kidnaps Israelis, nevermind killing a few in the proccess, would come clean and gain what he wanted. And negotiation afer July 12th would've meant exactly that. Reaction should've been harsh, and painful, both to HA and the rest of Lebanon - the former to detter if from similar attacks, and latter to force the Lebanese to take control over their country. The state of Israel has a duty to attach a price tag to any unprovoked attack on Israelis and Israeli soil, and that price should be high - not doing so is betrayal of its citizens, and Israel's first dury is to its citizens.
Indeed, if that wouldn't have happened, do you really think we would hear today Lebanese voices critisizing HA? Why? No significant cost, and either no benefit (for those who could care less about Kuntar and Shab'a) or worthwhile benefit (for the rest). Confronting HA would've been big-risk little-benefit move, and the charade of those bloody talks you wasted the last year on would've continued, perhaps with a little nu-nu-nu (but don't worry, wink wink nudge nudge). Now, confronting HA has a clear benefit, or rather, not confronting it has a massive price. If nothing else, Israel had the full right (let alone duty) to do this change in the equation.

Look, I believe I understand how you feel. I hope you'll excuse me if say you're position is pretty easy to understand and sympathize with. You have the role of the weak and innocent victim to the Israeli brutes who without sufficient reason savaged you. I can't think of an easier position to advocate.
However, I'm trying to make you see the perspective of the other side. The side that is stronger, but not involunerble. The side that has to take steps to insure the safety of its people, and even if those steps are painful on the recieving side, they were neccesery. The side whose story is not so easy and simple.
Only by understanding the other side, analysing how it would react to different actions, one can hope to achieve something.

And as you can see, no problem with long essays on this side of net... :p

tears for lebanon said...


I came home from work today and anxiously turned on my computer to see if you had did. I read. I then turned off my computer, did a few errands, all the while, thinking about what you wrote to me. I have been overcome with sadness with the realization that you and I have come to an impasse.

To me, as echoed so many times by others here in this blog, peace is so much more than just 'not war'.....and yet that is all that is left to hope for...just not war. I hope that the future generations will have more than what we achieved...more than mere dialogue. God willing, they will find true understanding of each other, empathy and peace.

I wish for you a good life...thank you for our conversations.
tears for..a different reason tonight.

Sherri said...

tears for lebanon,

It's obvious that there are some Israelis who are completely unable to relate to the pain and suffering of people outside Israel. Even when their government is the clear source of that pain and suffering.

Have they seen their government commit so many atrocities against outsiders that
the events create in them no emotions whatsoever for the victims, except indifference, blame or hate? Or can they just not accept their government is wrong or evil? (I have no false illusions left about my country, the US. But it is painful to face the truth.)

If I ever get to the point in my life that I can look at pain and suffering of others and injustice and be blind to it and feel nothing for those who are suffering, then life is not worth living anymore.

Life to me is all about loving God and loving others, feeling and caring about others who are suffering. Our ability to feel empathy for others is the very basis of our humanity, what sets us apart as human beings.

We are all human beings, made by God and in God's image and God's treasures. God wants us to know him and love him with all of our hearts, all of our minds, and all of our souls and to love one another. God created everyone in this world, and he loves everyone in this world, and wants everyone to know him and love each other.

We need to live in peace with each other, accept that we have differences but accept that is OK. We need to work out our differences. Talk to each other. Stop the name calling. Act like responsible adults, not pouting children.

What I find ironic today is that the countries who are starting the wars, Israel and the United States, start the wars on the alleged basis that they see other countries as a threat to their existence. Israel views Hezbullah as a threat to their existence. The US sees Iraq as a threat to their existence. They are the aggressors and attack others out of their fear over this perceived threat (or is it really a need to control and exercise dominion over others and a feeling of superiority to others) and hate which that fear generates.

Now, all we hear about in the news is the threat Iran is to Israel and the threat Iran is to the United States. Iran and Hezbullah are compared to Hitler.

Hold on and pray, because I am afraid we are heading for much more needless and unnecessary death and destruction and those who suffer most will very likely again be the most innocent members of our society, the children and innocent civilians.

When will they (the governments of the US and Israel) accept and understand that wars only lead to more wars and that wars are just a road to death and destruction? We should always strive and work towards peace through dialogue.

Life is so precious. Let us treasure and preserve each other's right to life.

Shmulik said...


That's a very touching post (no sarcasm, However it seems rather odd to me, that you can endorse such a humanistic world view, and than implicitly support organizations like the hizbollah.
Can you please explain how the fact that a country who claims every 3-4 days that it's holy mission is to destroy me, has developed IRBM that an reach me (Shiahb-3/3d) and is developing WMD is not a threat to me??

Dimitry said...


I admit, I fail to see why. It's not that my position gives no hopes for anything but bloodshed. There's a clear way out. I also dare claim that it is based on no basic assumptions more extreme than the claim a state must protect its citizens first.
With which part in my chain of reasoning do you disagree? Because if you find no specifc step or assumtion faulty, you cannot simply disagree with conclusion just because isn't unsavoury (which I fully admit it is).


I honestly do feel sorry for innocent lives lost in Lebanon. I fully understand and sympathize with the people who thought they are building a decent and functioning society, only to have this thrust on them. I also think Israel's actions were justified. They don't contradict. They mean that after concidering the alternatives, I find this to be the by far lesser evil. Familiar with the term?
Now, of course, I'm biased when it comes to what is worse and what isn't (although I dare say not when it comes to analysing the situation). It is a perfectly predictable and reasonable bias. However, thinking first about Israel doesn't equate to thinking only about Israel.

From what I can see, you allow your position to be decided purely by your emotions, and your emotions are mainly guided by what you see on CNN. Picture shows something bad? Action that caused it must be wrong. Anyone who has a justifies this action either didn't see the picture, or didn't find it bad - because otherwise, he would've agreed this action was wrong. That's how I read you. That, and the assumption that everybody basically want the same things, and if we'll just talk we'll all live in peace and prosterety forever. Well, except maybe people in the west, such as GWB and Olmert. But certenly everybody else, particularly the various terror organizations.

I'd rather analyse the situation, deduce what would be outcomes of different actions, and choose the one that is best - even in the proccess the pictures on CNN are pretty bad. And I also recognize the possibility of people having radically different and even contradicting moralities - something that could simply not allow them to settle their difference peacefully. Do you think someone could talk you to compromising your morality? In exchange for something that you may concider far lesser benefit that what you compromise on?

Sherri said...


Hezbullah is fighting injustice, the injustice of being occupied and the injustice of having to endure recurring attacks from Israel. Remember, this is not the first time or the second time or even the third time that Israel invaded and occupied Lebanon.

Iran has never attacked Israel or even threatened to, absent statements that they would defend themselves if attacked. As for its President's comments, I do not believe he ever said Iran intends to attack Israel, either. In addition, the real power in Iran is not in the President. It is in Iran's spiritual leader. The United States and Israel will not even speak to officials from Iran, directly or indirectly.

Sherri said...


One other point, Iran is at least five to eight years away from developing nuclear weapons, from estimates I have heard. Why can't Israel and the US invest some time and effort in trying to establish diplomatic relations with Iran, at least talk to them face to face or communicate through third parties, try to negotiate issues with Iran, before starting another air attack campaign or outright war that primarily causes pain and suffering to innocent civilians.


I have feelings and emotions and feel empathy for what the civilian population in Lebanon was subjected to by Israel's invasion and occupation of their country. I do not think Israel's choices were the only way that this could have been handled.

There were choices to be made and there are always choices. We can always put more effort into diplomatic solutions, whether its Israel or the United States, when deciding whether to attack or try diplomacy with Hezbullah or Iran. This is not a reenactment of World War II. There is no Hitler killing Jews in concentration camps or invading other countries. There was and is no necessity for immediate military action to be taken against Hezbullah or Iran. There was and is no threat of such a nature that war was or is inevitable between Israel and Hezbullah or Israel and Iran or the US and Iran.

Those 1300 people in Lebanon did not have to lose their lives. It is not just an emotional response. It is a fact. War was not inevitable. Choices were made, to resort to military action, and the nature of that military action. Because of Israel's choices, 1300 people are dead. And there are human rights agencies and legal scholars and experts all over the world who believe choices Israel made led them to commit war crimes against civilians. Are war crimes moral? Do immoral acts of others justify war crimes?

You say you cannot negotiate with some people. How long has Iran had its present government? Since 1979. Have they started any wars in those 27 years? No. They were in one war, a eight year war with Iraq, but that war was started by Iraq. Who helped Iraq with weapons and intelligence? The United States and Arab countries.

How long has Hezbullah been in existence? Almost as long as the Iranian government. You state you cannot negotiate with some people. But hasn't Israel done exactly that in the past, effectively negotiated with Hezbullah? What about when Israel and Hezbullah had prior prisoner exchanges? What about when Israel withdrew from Lebanon 6 years ago? Wasn't Israel choosing peace over war then.

There are always choices. Wars are choices. They are not inevitable. We can always choose peace instead of war.

Shmulik said...


It seems to me that eighter you are a little bit misinformed or you choose to ignore certain parts of reality. let me give you an example:
"Hezbullah is fighting injustice, the injustice of being occupied and the injustice of having to endure recurring attacks from Israel" let me quote nassaralah for you: "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel"
or maybe "I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called "Israel." I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful. That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle" But wait maybe he does like Israel "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide". All the statments above are from Nasarallah and not some random hizbollah member. All of these quotes are from AFTER the israeli withdrawl in 2000.
You have made up a theory that hizballah is fighting injustice or occupation, but the truth is that the "injustice" that they fight is the existance of Israel and the "occupation" they fight is in Israel and not in Lebanon. Maybe you agree with him and that's your business but please see reality as it is and not as you want it to be.

Dimitry said...


I feel really silly constantly repeating myself, but what else can I do when your bring on constantly the same arguments, without in any way reacting to my rebuttals?

For the upteemth time - yes, in the past HA kidnapped soldiers and Israel negotiated their return in exchange for release of a bunch of terrorists (Who already killed couple of dozens of Israelis, but that's beyond the point).
This. Is. Precisely. The. Reason. Why. Israel. Could. Not. Do. So. Again.

It isn't really so difficult to comperhend. A country that allowing the freedom of its citizen to become something to be snatched and bargained about at will is failing its most basic duty. Say, want a visa to Israel but those bastards unjustly won't give? Kidnap the nearest Hebrew speaker, two weeks and chop chop, brand new visa. Cool, eh? This is an exegrattion, but the underlining concept is exactly what your suggested policy means.

Lebanon had a choice in July 12th. It could declare that anyone attacking another country without the government's order is breaking Lebanese law, defying the Lebanese governmend - and then follow up with the appropriate deeds. This only seems far fetched in the skewed world we live in. After all, this is exactly what would've happened had a bunch of Israelis attacked, killed and kidnapped Lebanese, or for the matter, if a bunch of Jordanians attacked, killed and kidnapped Israelis. Under those circumstances, Israel could expect the accepeted conduct between nations to protect its citizens without starting a war.
However, it didn't happen, whether because they couldn't, or because they didn't wan't to. This is irrelevant. Whatever the reasons, it meant that reasonable conduct is out of the window, and the only way for Israel to prevent it becoming a celebration of "Hijack The Israeli" over in the Cedar land is to attack, to attach such an action an high price tag.

True, wars aren't invietable. But sometimes the alternatives to war are not peace, but something worse than war, and this is such a case. This meant, effectivly, that Israel's "choice" was no choice at all.

Sherri said...


Both Israel and Hezbullah have demonstrated, by their actions or words, that they hate each other and desire to destroy each other.

Israel demonstrated its hate and desire to destroy Hezbullah and the Shiite Muslim population of Lebanon by its attacks and targeting of those populations in this conflict. Hezbullah demonstrated its hate and desire to destroy Israel by statements after Isreal's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000.

So, is your solution that you should just fight to the death until one of you wipes the other off the map. This is not an acceptable method to resolve this conflict. It takes too much of a toll on the lives of innocent civilians who just want a chance to live their lives in peace. It leads to more violence and more wars.

Hezbullah cannot be disarmed by force, only by diplomatic pressure.
Hezbullah represents approximately 1 million people in Lebanon (Shiite population) and there are likely others that support them.

The only way to resolve the conflicts between Israel and Hezbullah is through dialogue and diplomacy, between Israel and the Lebanese government, and involvement of international organizations like the United Nations.

Hezbullah views itself as fighting injustice and illegal past and present occupations (of Lebanon and Palestine) and rallies its supporters to fight these injustices. If Israel truly desires peace, they need to resolve the underlying conflicts that are giving rise to the occupations and feelings of injustice. The Palestinians need their own state and the remaining issues that Lebanon and Israel have with each other need to be resolved. (the occupation of Sheeba Farms, which Hezbullah claims is owned by Lebanon; the continuous disregard by Israel of Lebanon's sovereignty as demonstrated by Israel's regular violations of Lebanese airspace; providing maps of landmines left by Israel in Lebanon; the return of each others soldiers and prisoners).


You continue to argue Israel's actions in this war were the right choice and I continue to diasagree with you. We have different opinions.

Now, you say Lebanon had a choice on July 12. What choice did Israel give Lebanon? Did I miss something here?

So, where is your peace? What has Israel acccomplished by this war?
What goals were achieved? You are so sure Israel acted appropriately

chuck said...


u see now what u do ? u connect hisballa and lebanon to the palestinian conflict.
u'v been arguing all along that hisballa is a resistance aginst the Israeli ocupation in lebanon, and that it fights for the right's of lebanese people.
and now u contradict urself and say that hisballa is fighting for palestinians.
this is hardly an interes of the lebanese people.

Dimitry said...


Please explain how Israel's action showed a desire to destroy the Shiite population of Lebanon. I must admit, I failed to see the gas chambers, the killing pits, or even simply tens of thousands people buried beneath the rabble of their homes. I think you need to learn some more history, just so you could tell the difference between what Israel did and genocide.

Yes, we have different opinions. This isn't god's decree, nor a law of nature. They can be discussed, compared, and at least we could identify the crux of disagreement. But the problem is, I'm explaining my position and supplying rebuttals to yours, while you're mostly repeating yourself. Can you please supply rebuttals to my points? Can you explain why you don't think that negotiation after July 12th would've encauraged the next kidnapping? How exacltly demonstration that a certain tactic works would not encaurage them to use it again? Why surrending to blackmail won't result in more blackmail?

Look, Lebanon is (theoretically at least) a sovereign state. It doesn't need Israel to hold it by the hand. The choice was clear, and I outlined it in my previous post - either act against HA like any responsible nation would have, or not. They didn't need Israel explicitly saying that, just like they don't need Israel ordering them to arrest theives or build roads. I'm talking here about ABC of sovereignity - someone from your country attacks another country, you don't wish war with that another country, you arrest the mofo. Not doing so is being complicit. Occasionally, there are black & white situations, and this is one of them. And they had quite enough time to declare that they intend to do so before Israel started its major attack.

What Israel achieved... Well, that's another story. Reaching the desired achievement requires first choosing the correct action, and then executing it properly. While the former was done, the latter, alas, wasn't. The managing of this war was a massive celebration of incompetence, ineptness, and idiocity. I can generate massive rants on that topic, if you really want.
However, I do note one achievement: July 12th attacks aren't celebrated thoughout Lebanon anymore. On the contrary, Nasrallah finds himself excusing it with various (and contradicting) claims. It will probably not prevent the next attack (Israel's performance was too dismal), but it will make it more difficult.

Sherri said...


When people have to sit back and watch their neighbors be oppressed, and they have suffered similarly from the aggressor, that has to effect them and their actions. It is human nature. My point is just that if Israel really wants lasting peace with all its neighbors, the Palestinian issue must be resolved.

The Occupied Areas are essentially a large prison, they are Israel's concentration camps, where they torture and oppress the Palestinian people.

I think there is a need for justice within all human beings. There is a hate for injustice. The Palestinian situation is an injustice that only becomes more severe as time passes. There is such suffering and cries for help that noone responds to, except Iran most recently. Say what you will about them, but they alone stepped forward to help the Palestinian cause. And I am thankful to them for their actions.
God bless them.


chuck said...



yes, that might be the new slogan, "arrest the MOFO !!"
i can make a t shirt from this slogan.

and sherri,

yes indeed, god bless iran...

ho my god...

that's all i can say to u.
i just concluded that u don't seek peace, u simply wish for the distruction of Israel. u just ignor all things that concern the wish for others to destroy Israel and bring only the side that show Israel's bad sides.

the iranians helping the palestinians ?? ho my god !

iran would help whoever wants to attack Israel. whether it's hisballa or the palestinians ? doesn't matter.

soon u'll say iran only wants peace on earth. u'll obviously ignor the call for iran to detroy Israel and the US, and u'll ignor the call of ahmadinjad and his foreign minister that the holocoast never happened, or that the numbers of victims was over exagerated.

sherri, u just try to find any excuse to make an argument against Israel, u use any citation that shows Israel as an aggresive country and a country who has no morals and tries to conquer the earth every new born day.

iran doesn't want peace. it wants war and distruction in the middle east and so does hisballa. and u protect them both, therefor i guess by common sens that u r a supporter of both. therefor against Israel, and certainly not for peace.
and so i wish u have a good life. i got tired of talking to u, it's of no use. u will continue to stick to u'r possition against Israel no matter what. all we can say to u won't change u'r mind. dimitry, u may continue to try talking some sens into her but i think it's hopless.

tears for lebanon said...


Why I think we came to an impasse....Dimitry, I came to believe that you and I both have 'vision impairments'....I believe that you are seeing this current situation through the 'eyeglasses of a soldier'...and you believe that I am seeing this through 'eyeglasses of a victim', but because we can not see the situation as the other...we can not come to an agreement on how this could have been handled better and how this can become better. To me, we are both suffering from blindness....we are trying to understand each through dialogue....however as I thought about our conversations (the last time we posted on that night)...I kept thinking 'how does a mother explain to her child who was born blind the beauty of a sunrise when the child can not imagine what even the sun looks like?'

I don't know Dimitry....I don't want to stop dialogue, but what are we gaining if we can not see the views of the other...and even when we think we are seeing it....the other thinks it is distorted.

That is why i think the future generations will have a better chance...they say hindsight is 20/20...maybe in the future when the young children turn to be young adults, they will be able to look back and see our mistakes and be able to see a clearer way to proceed....and gain what our generation is failing to gain...which is peace.

In your last post to me, You mentioned that you believe I simplify matters....I can only say to that ...if we dont break down the walls and address basic, simple, human needs first, we can not expect people to desire to address the complex multidemensional issues that surround the regional issues. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict needs to be broken down to basic fundamentals. It is like telling a person who is suffering from dehydration that they should be concerned that the water in the lakes are becoming polluted....but if you are going without water, do you really care about the environmental problem of the lakes? just want to drink....and if you become desperate enough, you may even consider drinking the diseased lake water. I know this is poor attempt of an anology, but I feel that the Palestinians are desperate for a drink of water...after their thirst is gone, then I believe, they will be concerned for their surrounding environment and changes can take place.

You know the situation with Israel and Palestine differently than me....but can you agree that the situation must change....even if attempts had been made in the past....the situation is horrific now...the question is do you stop trying to make it better?

How is this relevent to Lebanon....It is true it is not 'our' cause....but the Lebanese do look upon the Pali's as our displaced brothers, and we do feel that they have been badly mistreated by their step-mom. It is a human rights issue that I feel has been ignored by the world. And i truely feel that until the Palestinian issues gets resolved, there will be continued conflict with Israel and other Arab countries.

I choose to post here, because I really wanted to express to you why I felt we came to an impasse, without input from all others on this blog....I really only want your response to this, if you choose to respond.

And now i am gonna say 'simply'...good night.

Dimitry said...


I once overheard a conversation between couple of my friends, that went roughly like this
"So, how did you argument about X with Y end?"
"Ah, you know, like all arguments between people who know what they're talking about... We realized we disagreed about the definitions."

Regardless of through what glasses do we view the conflict, it is possible to compare the logical constructs we call "views", and find the source of disagreement. It will usually be in definitions, or perhaps the basic assumptions from where one is starting, which stems from his fundamental beliefs and morals. Once such disagreement has been spotted, it is usually an impasse. What I'm trying to do is to get to this point, identify where the source of disagreement lies. And I really don't think this can be summed up with "different glasses".

Let's drop for the moment the Palestinian issue, and focus on Lebanon - sympathy aside, unresolved Palestinian issue doesn't necceserily require war between Israel and Lebanon, does it?
You think Israel was wrong to attack after July 12th, and should have negotiated instead. I explained why I think such a move would have been not only futile, but counter productive. It would have been total surrender to blackmail that would've invited constant and repeated attacks of this kind. Negotiation would therefore mean Israel failed its most basic duty as a state - protection of its citizens.
So, where do you disagree with this?

Sherri said...


You say I always support Hezbullah and I always criticize Israel. But this is not really true. I addressed Israel's war crimes, and also addressed Hezbullah's war crimes.

No country is completely right or completely wrong. Iran is extremist in many of its views and policies.

But Iran alone stepped forward to help the Palestinians when they were in desperate need.
They were being deprived of the most basic things needed for a people to survive, like food and shelter.

The pictures of people forced from their homes at moments' notice and having to watch as their homes were blown up, repeating themselves day after day. Innocent civilians killed by Israel, many of whom were children, the images repeating themselves day after day. Every single day, news in Iran showing its residents what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank, and the people cannot escape the images of the suffering of the Palestinians.

Coming forward to help a people so desperately in need and who are undergoing such suffering and oppression was the right thing to do. And at that point in time, the rest of the world was closing their eyes to the plight of the Palestinians. Why, because they did not like the party the Palestinians chose by a democratic process to represent them.

I thought the desire of the Western World was to spread democracy and civilization to the Middle East. I thought democracy was a people voting for their own choice of persons to lead their government. Not having ousiders dictating who will lead their countries.

chuck said...


i thought u know a little about the brainwashing of tv.

why is it so urgent suddenly for the iranians to show the palestinian suffering on their tv ??

tv dictates the gravity of things, it dictates what r the prime issues that we will address in our daily lives.
if the tv news will give most of it's time to road accidents then the next day, most people will be talking about road accidents.
and if the news channels, or in irans case, the regime, decides to put the palestinian suffering as the main issue on the news, then people in iran will be talking about the palestinian suffering.

it doesn't neccesserily mean that iran's pure intentions r to help the palestinians. iran has it's own interests. and if hurting Israel happends to be by "helping" the palestinians (what kind of help anyway ??) then why not ?

i think iran was "helpfull" enough in the current war, i don't think we wish for it's "help" also in the palestinian matters. it could be more catastrophic then what was happening untill now.

the bottom line is, iran's "help" won't bring us to peace.
first iran should help it's people, take care of it's own issues.
we appriciate the offer, but please, sherri, try to be a little bit realistic over here, ok ?

Sherri said...


I agree that Iran definitely has a problem with its priorities, when it allows its own people to suffer the way it does. But I see the same thing in the US, the suffering of poor people in New Orleans and the lack of health care for millions of people all over the US. At the same time, we start and maintain wars and support other's wars everywhere.

I do not think Iran suddenly started reporting on the Palestinian conflict. I think they always have done this, feeling they have to report on the suffering of fellow Muslims. What changed was the worsening plight of the Palestinians after the election of Hamas. This triggered Iran's assistance.

A similar thing happened after Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Iran reacted to Israel's attacks on Lebanon by helping to create Hezbullah and supporting Hezbullah. And it was not just the government. My husband was in Iran then. He remembers speeches and people giving all their jewlery and gold to support Hezbullah. Think about this. This is remarkable. This was in the middle of the Iran Iraq war, the bloodiest and most violent war since World War II. In the midst of this horrible war, when their resources had to be stretched, Iran reached out and helped to create Hezbullah. When confronted by the suffering of the Shiite Muslim population in Lebanon. Again, it was a response to suffering of Muslims.

LionofZion said...

Interesting articles at

Check it