Being even-handed not part of Mideast policy

[msmcghee]

Canada was right in rejecting threats to annihilate Israel, says Irwin Cotler
Aug. 19, 2006. 01:00 AM
IRWIN COTLER

There has been a lot of loose language in some of the political punditry surrounding the Israel-Hezbollah war to the effect that a "principled" Canadian foreign policy "should not take sides" in the conflict; that "even-handedness" is the hallmark of our "tradition" as an "honest broker;" that we "risk losing our influence" as a respected "interlocutor" in the Middle East.

Regrettably, these musings and meanderings ignore that a principled Canadian foreign policy historically has taken sides, as in the first two World Wars, the Korean War, and NATO intervention in Yugoslavia; that we have eschewed "even-handedness" whether it be opposing the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq, or supporting the Canadian mission in Afghanistan; that "we did not risk our influence" whenever we took a principled stand at the United Nations (as in co-sponsoring a resolution on Iranian human rights violations), nor did we become a more respected interlocutor when we did not (as in not confronting Syria in the Maher Arar matter).

Indeed, these musings — together with such morally obtuse meanderings about the "cycle of violence," or that "it is not important who started the war" — constitute a political Pablum that comports neither with Canadian principles nor with contemporary reality. The notion of being even-handed between terrorist groups sworn to Israel's destruction and a democratic country defending itself from armed attack is a moral absurdity, a "perversion of our traditions" as The Globe and Mail put it.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155937810328&call_pageid=970599119419

I find the enumerated priciples in this article to be quite inspiring. IMO- if the left in this country would adopt a similar sensible approach to I/P - our control of the next several administrations and congress would be assured.

OTOH - Nonsense emanating from the left about how terrorists need a place at the table too, and purported Israeli war crimes plays perfectly into Rove's frame that we are incapable of protecting the US from terrorism. It could well undermine whatever chances we now have, the openings created by Bush's complete ineptitude over the last six years.

[Tom Joad]

1. Public Contempt for Palestinians and Lebanese,

Another perspective see this critique of Canadian support for Israeli aggression:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10768

Public Contempt for Palestinians and Lebanese
by Dan Freeman-Maloy

Why the Cotler article is being presented here, which is basically a defense of the Bush/Olmert view of the Middle East, i don't quite understand. But Mr. Freeman-Maloy's article is hereby prescribed as antidote to such simplistic pablum. Take liberally.

[msmcghee]

2. There are plenty of anti-Israeli threads started here.

If you have something to say about the ideas presented here - then let's hear them.

Simply linking to another opinion in opposition to the OP is a cop out. Start your own thread with it if you think its so illuminating.

[Tom Joad]

7. This article you presented is supportive of the Bush worldview

Which i basically think is a threat to all of humanity.
I think the article i cited is in direct contrast to that, and is helpful in this discussion.

[msmcghee]

10. Please re-read your words carefully.

They are the words that will frame the Republican campaign message.

McCain: "Yes, we've made some mistakes. But if we did they were perhaps errors of being too eager to protect America from terrorists. Would you turn American foreign policy over to those who would accuse Israel, the only democracy in the ME who is fighting for her life against insane terrorists like Nisrallah and Almedinijad, of war crimes before they would lift a finger to condemn or stop Hizbullah attacks against Israel? Would you turn American leadership over to those who say that our efforts to protect America and our values are "a threat to all humanity"?

I know this will be difficult for them to pull off. But, that's only because no sensible Democrat has come anywhere near making such idiotic policy statements.

Instead, you can go to any Dem website and see strong statements of support for Israel and against terrorist regimes.

But, keep trying. They'll even be mining for material here I suppose. With a little luck you could get famous in some repuke campaign ad.

[The Magistrate]

15. You Make An Excellent Point, Sir

One of the besetting difficulties of the left in national elections in our country is that to the great majority of the people, the most vocal elements on left seem, to put it charitably, somewhat other-worldly on the subjects of foreign affairs and national defence. In elections where these fields throw up important issues for popular consideration, any candidate generally identified as towards the left will experience some difficulties in consequence.

[Tom Joad]

19. In this world, Mr. Magistrate, hundreds of children were slaughtered

in Lebanon, tens of thousands lost their homes, cluster bombs sent by the US were used in what Amnesty International says amounts to war crimes.

If your children were buried under the rubble in Qana, you would be less interested in getting Dem supporters of Israeli aggression elected and more interested in changing a disastrous policy. That it is basically, at this point, bi-partisan to support and never question Israeli policy, doesn't make it any less idiotic, and really in the end against our interests in preserving life on the planet.

It was considered quixotic, and political suicide, at one time, to suggest that Whites and Blacks should have full and equal rights. (Martin Luther King wrote a long letter to those liberals who urged him to be "patient" and to be "realistic"). It was political suicide to suggest that the people of Vietnam had the right to self-determination, and that our military involvement there was wrong, while it was being waged by liberal Democrats. So it goes...

[msmcghee]

21. Mr. Magistrate can handle his own replies. However,

I must point out that no-one on the left that I knew back in the early sixties was in favor of attacking and killing segregationists - despite that some segregationists did not hold the same views toward us.

Overwhelmingly, we supported the non-violent action strategy of Martin Luther King - which eventually prevailed.

Had we chosen foolishly to use violence in our struggle - we would certainly have been marginalized and would have done our cause much damage - probably even destroyed it. That's what Hamas and Hizbullah and other terrorist groups are doing to the cause of the Palestinians.

The same can be said for the anti-VietNam war movement which I also fully participated in.

I want the Palestinians to live in peace in their own nation and to prosper. Your defense of the attacks of terrorists on the state of Israel - inasmuch as they have any success - are destroying the Palestinian's chance of any future.

[Tom Joad]

26. Please do not distort my comments.

"Your defense of the attacks of terrorists on the state of Israel - inasmuch as they have any success - are destroying the Palestinian's chance of any future."

A bold face distortion, even without the bold font. Where is the "defense of terror attacks" from me?

I am merely dissenting from the op defense of Israel's terror against the people of Lebanon.

[msmcghee]

31. A bold faced distortion?

I have read many of your posts over the last few days. They invariable characterize Israel's defense of her borders and the lives of her citizens as war crimes and terror against the people of Lebanon or Palestine.

I never found one that mentioned the greatest war crime of all - the crime of starting war by attacking peaceful neighbors - which is what the militias of Lebanon and Palestine have been doing repeatedly.

There were over 4000 missiles fired into N. Israel by Hizbullah with the purpose of killing unarmed civilians - and some of those succeeded. I have not found one post from you where you complain about such genuine war-crimes.

So, yes. Falsely accusing a defender against terrorist attacks - as being the aggressor and of war-crimes in that defense - is effectively the same as a defense of terror attacks. Almost all of your posts fit that description.

[Tom Joad]

34. I want a quote where i defend terror attacks (you won't find any)

otherwise, full retraction. thank you.

[msmcghee]

37. My statement was . .

"Your defense of the attacks of terrorists on the state of Israel - inasmuch as they have any success - are destroying the Palestinian's chance of any future."

I was pointing out what was destroying the Palestinian's chance of any future. My point was not that you were literally defending terrorist attacks - but that you were effectively doing so - and that "effect" was to destroy the Palestinian's chance of any future.

Your posts unanimously do support the notion that Israel was the aggressor in that conflict and was committing war crimes. That is effectively a defense of the actions of Hizbullah - who would then be acting "in defense" according to the great majority of your posts. In that way it is a defense of their actions.

I'll admit though, that despite the lack of any condemnation of Hizbullah or Hamas in your many posts here - and the almost unanimous condemnation of Israel, I could be wrong in my assessment. Also, I admit that I could have worded my post more carefully and you are justified in challenging me.

But to settle the question, can you answer this:

Do you - or do you not - believe that Hizbullah's attack against the Israeli patrol on the Israeli side of the blue line (where they killed three IDF and kidnapped another, the attack that instigated this recent conflagration that resulted in over one-thousand deaths) was justified?

If you answer that you condemn that attack as an act of war - then I will agree that I was wrong. I will admit my error and give you your full retraction.

Otherwise, I must conclude that my characterization of your posts was correct.

[Tom Joad]

39. I do not support attacks against civilians. Any civilians.

Including, but not limited to, those directed attacks against Palestinian, Iraqi, Lebanese, Israeli, Canadian, or U.S. civilians. Or journalists in Gaza (by the IDF or armed groups) or against Palestinians harvesting olives in the West Bank (by extremist Jewish settlers). I certainly do not support or condone attacks against those sitting in cafes in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, either. However, the violence starts with military occupation, and for those who want to end the violence must end that. That has not been proposed by the Israeli decisionmakers, and that is a tragedy. That pressure to end the violence of occupation must come from outside, in the form of sanctions against a state that refuses to conform to international law.

[msmcghee]

40. There is no international law that says . .

. . a nation can not attack and occupy another state that initiates war against it. The US occupied both Germany and Japan and my father ended up in both places.

Your answer has been noted.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. There is a bit of international law that says...

..that the settlements in the West Bank are illegal. I'm sure there's quite a few other bits of international law that Israel doesn't abide by...

[The Magistrate]

24. In This World, Mr. Joad

The slaughter of children is unfortunately routine, and generally occurs when "hard men" seek to aggrandize their prestige and power. Had Nasrallah not sought advantage for himself, or done perhaps the bidding of radical fundamentalist clerics in Iran as they directed for their own benefit, no one in Lebanon would be dead today as a result of Israeli actions. That remains the principal fact of the recent events, and no amount of crying up "disproportionate response" or "war crimes" or any of the rest of the litany can alter it. It is most unwise to engage in violence in circumstances where you cannot control or contain not just the likely but the possible reaction of the body you engage in violence against: this is a guiding principle of combat, from the personal to the clash of peoples. What is most regretable is that it is not the leaders who pay the forfeits for their mis-calculations and mis-cues, but rather the people they involve, quite without their consent, in their schemes for glory and gain. If the people of Lebanon were thinking clearly, they would have lynched Nasrallah by the middle of July, and good riddance all around.

My principal concern, Sir, is my own country, and its welfare and the welfare of its people. This is best served, in my view, by evicting the leading elements of reaction here from their dominant presence in the national government. That can only be done by the defeat of Republican candidates in elections for Federal office, and that requires the victory of Democratic Party candidates in their various races. You will doubtless be of the view that the Democratic party is far from being "really" a left body, but the general perception of the voting public is very different from that. They take the Democratic Party as being the party on the left here, and whatever is identified in the popular mind as "left" attatches itself ineluctably to the Democratic Party, and this has measureable effect on how people cast their votes. the sort of line you have expressed above cost Democratic candidates votes every November of an even-numbered year. that may not strike you as something of much importance, but it strikes me as supremely important.

[Tom Joad]

28. I take the well-being of children over the well-being of politicians any

day of the week, but especially on Thursdays.

And how sending cluster bombs to Israel serves my well-being or the well being of my country is beyond me.

[The Magistrate]

30. That Is An Odd Position You Express, Sir

Do you think nothing more is at stake in who holds a majority in the government of our country than whether of not some politician gets a living from the tax-payers?

That is a peculiar view for anyone with the slightest pretence to political sophistication, which it has always been my understanding is a pre-requisite for radical activism....

[Violet_Crumble]

56. I actually find yr stance pretty repulsive...

It's a *Win At All Costs* attitude. Bugger the fact that cluster bombs have been used, after all kiddies die all the time, and it's not like they're American kiddies or anything important like that. If political sophistication means leaving any sense of morality at the door, I'd be very happy to be like most of the rest of the world and be so lacking in political sophistication that we're appalled by the way both parties and most of the population in the US carries on like when it comes to the Middle East...

[The Magistrate]

67. That My Leading Interest, Ma'am, Is The Domestic Politics Of The U.S.

Is no great secret....

[The Magistrate]

11. The 'Z-Mag' Article, Mr. Joad

Hardly lives up to your billing of it, or even its own title. It hardly demonstrates the rally, or the policy the rally urges, is a simple exercise in racism: it shows only that a number of persons disagree with the view the author takes of events in the Near East. One must begin with the same assunptions as the author, concerning those events, or the character of those who disagree with him concerning them, to find the picture he paints very convincing. It is pretty low-grade stuff, all things considered, though certainly well within expectations of what would be found in that particular periodical.

The hyperbole employed, of course, is entertaining in its way. Some of these things are repeated so often they take on the lineaments of a mantra prayer, and one suspects a form of auto-hypnosis creeps over the polemicists in their dedication. The starving of Gaza, for example: a remarkable exercise that lacks at present any deaths for lack of food trumpeted to the world. There are certainly short rations, and people getting less to eat than they should, and doubtless some bad effects on health here and there in consequence, but the phrase "the starving of Gaza" conjures up the sort of images one expects from famines such as that afflicting Somalia some years ago, and they are not honestly present. "The malnourishment of Gaza" or "The under-feeding of Gaza" lack quite the same zing, though they would have at least a useful ring of accuracy.

[Tom Joad]

25. Sorry for the lack of distended bellies. So it would best be called

an imposed "diet"?

"Everyone agreed on the need to impose an economic siege on the Palestinian Authority, and Dov Weissglas, as usual, provided the punch line: "It's like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won't die," the advisor joked, and the participants reportedly rolled with laughter."
See Gideon Levy http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9785

I don't know why it would matter, but perhaps if it were your children who lacked nutitional needs in Gaza, you would not be nitpicking about whether it was "starvation" or just a harsh diet.

[The Magistrate]

29. The Writer For Z-Mag, Sir, And Any Children He May Have

Probably feed well enough, and so this theme of "if it were yours" probably would exempt him as well. Starvation has a meaning, Sir, as does malnutrition, as does hunger, as does feeling a bit peckish. There is this suite of different words because there are a variety of degrees of the condition, sufficiently distinct to require the employment of seperate words to indicate which is meant. The gentleman in question is choosing his words not for accuracy of discription, but with an eye towards his hope for arousing an emotional response moving in a direction he prefers people adopt, and for that purpose, "starving" is the way to go, no question. The only problem is that it immediately identifies him as someone without any interest in presenting an accurate picture, which means he can never be trusted on any matter of fact, and suggests that in his soul he is someone akin to a salesman on a used car lot saying the newly painted item salvaged after a wreck a year ago has had some body-work done recently. The fact is that, if the usage "starvation" were accurate, you would not have to apologize for the lack of distended bellies, and we would probably be expressing a similar degree of outrage over it.

[bemildred]

3. He seems to confuse "even-handedness" with being wishwashy,

He seems to think it means refusing to take a position or something. For example:

that we have eschewed "even-handedness" whether it be opposing the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq, or supporting the Canadian mission in Afghanistan

His examples indicate taking a position, taking a stand. One can take a stand while being even-handed or not being even-handed. Even handedness mean considering all sides of an issue and giving them due weight, it's not the same thing at all as refusing to take a stand.

[msmcghee]

4. I think you're right.

He was equating even-handedness with being wishy-washy because those pundits in Canada who prefer to be wishy-washy and "not take sides" - claim that they are "being even-handed".

He was ridiculing that characterization, IMO.

(Were you surprised to see a post title where I agreed with you?) B-)

P.S. I know you don't like principles and all that, but what do you think of the principles laid out in the article?

[bemildred]

6. No, I think he means it:

The notion of being even-handed between terrorist groups sworn to Israel's destruction and a democratic country defending itself from armed attack is a moral absurdity, a "perversion of our traditions" as The Globe and Mail put it.

He deliberately casts the matter in black and white terms. He doesn't want us to consider all sides of the issue.

I'm not at all surprised that we might agree about some things. We already have.

I'm not that impressed with his principles either, I have a low opinion of simple sets of rules as a substitute for reasoned judgement and flexibility. I suppose it's a general anti-authoritarian streak I have.

[Tom Joad]

8. We should take a stand to protect everyone's rights. Not just the

supposed protection of Israel. I say "supposed" because i think Israeli aggression in Lebanon has done more to endanger Israelis than anything else.

Much like Bush's war on the people of Iraq has done our real national security much incalculable harm, but it was supported by the fool who wrote this article.

[bemildred]

12. Human rights for all humans, that would seem to be the goal.

I still like to have a bit of room for judgement and common sense, getting too rigid about rules will tie you in knots and lead you into absurdities in the end. Things have meaning within a certain context, absolutisms lead you into doing stupid things because "those are the rules".

[msmcghee]

16. I'm curious. How does the rule . .

. . it is wrong to initiate the use of force against others . . lead one into doing stupid things because "those are the rules"?

[bemildred]

17. People can never agree about "who started it".

The problem is endemic in I/P issues, and much hot air is expended in attempts to assert that it was started at some fixed point in the past by the other fellows. It causes problems by allowing people to ignore their own responsibility for what happens to them. "He started it, it's his fault."

[msmcghee]

20. Those who have trouble understanding who starts . .

. . violent conflicts in the ME are simply ignoring the facts to suit their ideology. It's very easy to understand who starts the conflicts there with a simple logical test.

Do you honestly believe that if Israel's enemies were to disarm and were able to prevent any further terrorist attacks against Israel - that Israel would use that condition to attack Lebanon or Jordan or Syria or Iran or any person in Palestine?

Or, do you think that Israel would do everything in its power to ensure that such a condition would prevail - including return of all settlements and other types of cooperation like foreign aid to Palestinians to help them establish a government that could hold the peace?

If you think the former would happen then your ideology has surely taken over your brain. If you agree the latter is more likely - then your belief that it's OK to ignore the rule that is wrong to start wars because it gets too confusing - is just not credible.

Israel's enemies like Hamas have pledged in blood to destroy the state of Israel. Given a free choice Palestinians elected Hamas to run their affairs and have not demanded that Hamas renounce that pledge to destroy Israel.

Israel has done nothing but respond to their attempts to do that. Open your eyes.

[bemildred]

23. It is a fact that people do not agree about these things.

Your assertion that they ought to does not change that, it is just another assertion that your view is correct, and the "principles" are just a rhetorical ploy to assert that everyone that disagrees is wrong.

There are certainly elements in Israeli society that would resist a settlement such as you suggest.

Israels enemies are no more required to disarm that Israel is, they have the same right to the means of defense as anyone, the issue is how to bring them to the bargaining table for a negotiated settlement, and calls for disarmament merely impede that by preventing negotiations.

It is simply not true that Israel is a puppet dancing to a tune set by others, militarily or otherwise.

[The Magistrate]

27. That Is Indeed The State Of Play, Mr. Mildred

In specific instances, one can sometimes point to a specific occurance, and say this particular bout was kicked off by that specific action, but even in such instances, a tremendous degree of effort is expended in arguing that because people were provoked in some way, then they absolutely had to respond in the manner they did. It is an odd line of arguement, examined closely, for it completely strips the reacting party of an moral agency, or in other words of one of the essential elements of adulthood as a human, and assigns this solely to the party who gave the provocation. Thus, a person who argues that Arab Palestinians had to act as they did in response to some Israeli provocation is in effect arguing that Arab Palestinians are an inferior sort of creature, not quite fully adult humans, and a person who argues that Israelis had to act as they did in response to some Arab Palestinian provocation is in effect arguing that Israelis are an inferior sort of creature, not quite fully adult humans. People are responsible for what they do, even under great stress and great provocation: it must be held to be so, anyway, or there is simply no way any social body can be made to work, neither "Oops!" nor "What did ya expect?" being sound principles for getting along once real harm to another has come to pass.

[msmcghee]

38. Perhaps a better way to pose the question is . .

. . if both sides in a dispute adhered to the policy of not initiating the use of force against the other - what stupid things would that save them from doing?

[bemildred]

41. That would be wise.

Not resorting to violence is almost always a good idea, even when provoked, and when it is a good idea, it is still wise to consider carefully. Lashing about wildly almost never improves ones situation, and neither do ill considered outbursts. We consider this obvious in our personal lives and yet think that it does not matter in the affairs of nations. To be really wise, one would have to abandon the issue of provocation, of who started it, altogether and address the question of use of force on it's merits in the light of the goals one seeks to attain and the situation as one finds it at present; in other words one should leave past events out of it for the most part, and consider dispassionately the situation as it exist at the moment.

[msmcghee]

42. You say,

"To be really wise, one would have to abandon the issue of provocation, of who started it, altogether and address the question of use of force on it's merits in the light of the goals one seeks to attain and the situation as one finds it at present; in other words one should leave past events out of it for the most part, and consider dispassionately the situation as it exist at the moment."

Are you suggesting that the use of force may be justified - depending on the situation - even if no-one attacked you first?

[bemildred]

43. Justified is the wrong word, but sure.

Getting in the first punch is a good idea, if one must fight. Isn't that what Israel did in 1967?

[msmcghee]

44. Well, actually . .

Getting in the first punch when you are about to be attacked is not initiating violence. The violence was effectively initiated in the preparations for war by your enemy and the amassing of their troops and artillery along your border.

That is why international law recognizes that if another state places troops in such a way that they effectively place you at disadvantage from an attack by those troops - that you are justified in attacking those troops if you have cause to believe an attack is imminent. The other state is considered the aggressor and their placement of troops in such an aggressive position is considered an act of war.

I would therefore ask my question again.

Are you suggesting that the use of force may be justified - depending on the situation - even if no-one attacked you first? And even if no-one was preparing to attack you?

[bemildred]

45. I would refer you back to post #41.

And again, the word "justified" is not one I would use.

[bemildred]

46. I have already pointed out that it is a matter of fact that people will

not agree as to "who started it", or any of the variations on that which you might come up with. Now I am not going to then reason with you on the basis that we do have some sort of agreement as to "who started it". People that are intent on fighting will find a justification, and people that wish to avoid fighting will ignore the most serious provocations. Saying that you are justified in going to war because the other fellow started it amounts to little more than saying that you think you are justfied in going to war because you think so, it is circular. You are trying to refer to an objective criteria that does not really exist.

[msmcghee]

48. You are doing your best not to answer my hypothetical question.

I can understand that because you don't like what that would say about your position if you did - that right and wrong for you is simply a question of whatever it takes for your side to win.

I can only suggest that in forums like these you can be tricky and try to "win points" against positions you disagree with - or you can believe that your position is correct and allow others to challenge it - allowing your honest responses to lead to whatever conclusions may be justified. Like I did with Mr. Joad when I agreed to retract my assertion based on his response to my question. You may think that was a trick on my part but I was fully prepared to apologize and retract. I had no idea what his answer was going to be. But I thought giving him that chance was the honorable thing to do.

He did the intellectually honest thing even though that verified my assertion. I'm disappointed that you can't support your position with the same honesty and that you prefer to play word games instead.

[The Magistrate]

50. This Kind Of Line, Sir, Is Very Difficult To Establish

Take as an example the interaction between the U.S. and Imperial Japan during 1941. Japan secured predominance over the Vichy colony of Cochinchina; the United States then promoted an embargo on oil to Japan that was certain to grind the place to a halt in less than a year; Japan then launched a series of strikes, including the one on Pearl Harbor, aimed at seizing supplies of oil and other essential materials. Certainly from the Japanese point of view, the action of the U.S. was both unwarranted interference and a deadly threat, though it had no military quality about it at all. The answer to whether Japan was right or wrong to respond with military force would depend somewhat on whether you asked a Japanese or an American. It would, however, be much easier to get an objectively assessed answer on whether it was wise of Japan to attack the U.S. as it did, for a calm assessment of the balance of forces, not just military but industrial and economic, would suggest it was a fairly foolish move, and indeed, the Japanese military, not renowned for cool assessment of their own capabilities versus their foes, did not feel they could inflict total defeat on the U.S., but only do enough harm to its standing forces that it would sooner sign some treaty giving Japan a free hand than press on, which is tantamount to confession they knew they could not really win a total war between the two countries. The fact is that people will seldom agree on questions of morality, though they can often be brought to agreement on questions of practicality. Once matters have reached a pitch where conflict is actually likely over irreconcilable views or desires, right or wrong really do not have much pracical bearing on behavior, and the general case is that indeed people feel what will benefit them is right and what will not is wrong. Even in war, there are often reasons to act in ways that accord with common views of what it right, for instance if you generally starve your prisoners dead you will get fewer surrenders, and will have to fight a good deal harder to reduce positions, but where the real motive is expediency, no real claim of moral worth can be made for an action. In any war, soon enough both sides will always have engaged in sufficient beastly behavior that each will feel justified in regarding the other as a species of demon, and in most cases the idea one is good and one is bad will strike a neutral observer as a poor attempt at comedy.

[msmcghee]

59. Yet you seem to have little trouble discerning . .

. . some conflicts among nations. You recently said:

"Did Israel arrange for Nasrallah to order an attack on one of its border patrols? Certainly Mr. Olmert chose to engage in the manner that he did, but it is hard to argue sensibly that had Nasrallah not turned his armed men to the attack of the patrol, Israeli forces would have been assailing Lebanon this past July."

You discerned, correctly on my scales, that Nisrallah precipitated the recent conflict in Lebanon and that Israel was in the defensive moral position.

Actually, I appreciate your position on the difficulty of discerning some fundamental morality in human affairs of conflict. Your example of 1941 Japan/US relations is a good one. When I probe a little deeper I find that:

" Secretary Hull's Statement on Japanese Aggression, January 15

SECRETARY HULL discussed Japan's actions in the Far East, on January 15, 1941, at a hearing of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives on the Lend-Lease bill. The Secretary recounted the various steps in Japan's program of expansion, including the conquest of Manchuria, the denunciation of the naval treaty of 1922, the intensified construction of military and naval armaments, and the large-scale military operations against China which had begun in July 1937. He said it was clear that "Japan has been actuated from the start by broad and ambitious plans for establishing herself in a dominant position in the entire region of the Western Pacific"; that Japan's leaders had openly declared their intention to achieve and maintain that position by force of arms and thus to make themselves masters of an area containing almost one half of the entire population of the world.

The Secretary said that notwithstanding the course which Japan had followed during recent years, the United States Government had made repeated efforts to persuade Japan that its best interests lay in the development of friendly relations with the United States and with other countries which believed in orderly and peaceful international processes."

(Note: I found this at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/pearl.htm which contains some other interesting notes of the chronology of events around that time that some others might find interesting. I appreciate your prompting me to expand my awareness of this time in history which surely was lacking.)

Now, it's possible that such statements by Sec. Hull were simply sophisticated political posturings designed to fool peace-loving and somewhat isolationists Americans that the expansionist war to control the Western Pacific that Wilson and his cohorts were planning in secret - was a good and moral thing to do.

However, like the recent conflict in Lebanon - I think that positions of defense and aggression can usually be teased out of the actual statements and events of the times. It's my observation that ideologues especially can't seem to refrain from stating their aggressive intentions quite openly to their followers - as they believe so strongly and irrationally in the rightness of their position that they can't imagine that anyone could disagree. Also, that ideologues are the ones who's emotional committment to their cause is most likely to require aggression against others to fulfill their "vision" - much like the vision that most Arab leaders have of a ME cleansed of the state of Israel. In any case, it may be difficult but seldom impossible once all the facts are available to an unbiased third party.

But, if you are right (and you may be and I'm just arguing perhaps for what I hope is true) then it seems that there is no point to worrying about right and wrong - moral and immoral - in human affairs, whether at the level of two year-olds in the sandbox or nation-states. That view leaves me with the unsavory conclusion that the most successful course in human affairs will always lie in using superior strength and violence to take whatever you want from those who are too weak to defend themselves.

That may be the basic truth lying at the bottom of all this crap about international law and Geneva Conventions and such. Perhaps mothers should no longer restrain their children from simply taking whatever toys they wish from smaller children in the sandbox and humanity in future generations can get on with what is truly in our nature - without all those guilt trips that idealistic old fools like me are always trying to impose on them.

Is that what you believe? If your answer is affirmative I will admit my disappointment as I think your view on this seems pretty well informed by experience and I give it due weight. That doesn't mean I'm ready to accept it. Just that I will be forced to seriously reconsider my position and I'll be thoroughly perplexed on the matter until I can further resolve it to my satisfaction.

(Again, I caution you that I am not trying to maneuver you into some rhetorical trap. This post quite honestly expresses my opinions at this time.)

[The Magistrate]

64. To Answer Your Most General Concern Here, Sir

My own experience of life and conflicting desires has left me with the conclusion that analyzing matters in terms of right and wrong is of very little use. It is extraordinarily rare for a person to forthrightly acknowledge they know something is wrong and are doing it anyway. People generally convince themselves what they are doing is right, and that, if apparently wrong, is, if viewed by some higher or more basic standard, really right for them to do: most will go to their graves, even if those are in some prison yard, still convinced that that is so.

In this specific matter of Lebanon, where we differ seems to be in your characterization of the statement of mine you quoted as indicating Israel was "in the defensive moral position." My statement was neutral on the question of morals, on either side of the episode, but only concerned with sequence, and with whether or not one event was likely to have occured absent another and prior one. Nasrallah doubtless considers attacking Israel in whatever manners he can to be a most moral action, even a moral duty. Others may feel that is a orally dubious propostion, but it is in the nature of such disagreements that they cannot be settled, really, short of violence and the breaking of one or the side's ability to continue the quarrel. My viewing destruction of Hezbollah as a legitimate state objective for Israel does not mean it is my view that Israeli action towards this end is necessarily endowed with some good moral quality, or that every action taken ostensibly towards this end is necessarily a good and moral action. It simply means that any state can be expected, sooner or later, to undertake military action against an armed body that attacks it, and declares destruction of that state to be among its goals. When it does so, it is not engaged in any extraordinary or exceptional action, or in aggression, or anything else any more out of the routine for a state to do than regulating its currency, or instructing its spokesmen to say it has no intention at all of doing something it actually has resolved to commence before the end of the week.

"People act in self-interest, and justify it by morality."

[bemildred]

58. Your "question" is an attempt to smuggle into the discussion a

premise that I do not accept, the contradiction of the point I made. I am not required to respond directly to any question you care to think up, I can question the premises on which your question is founded or point out that your question presents a false dichotomy, for example. Your apparent notion that you can compel people to your point of view by asking questions is fatuous. I notice that you once again descend into casting aspersions on my character when your rhetorical ploys fail.

[msmcghee]

60. Your position is being better represented by . .

. . Mr. Magistrate. I am therefore more intersted in engaging him on this matter as I want to give opposing ideas the best chance to change my view.

If you wish to join in with reasoned and intellectually honest arguments and not word games - I will respond in kind.

[bemildred]

61. He is very articulate. nt

[bemildred]

13. Not that I disagree with your comments about the effects of Bushite

policy of the future prospects of Israel and the USA, mind you.

[mike_c]

5. you've erected a nice stawman....

Nonsense emanating from the left about how terrorists need a place at the table too, and purported Israeli war crimes plays perfectly into Rove's frame that we are incapable of protecting the US from terrorism.

A far more rational course would be to act upon the realization that unconditional support for Israel undermines U.S. credibility in the region, erodes any moral standing our foreign policy might have (OK, that's a reach, but one can hope), and is de facto support for apartheid and oppression. In other words, there will be less need to offer "terrorists" a place at the table if the U.S. stops creating hatred in the region by helping Israel oppress the Palestinians and others in its neighborhood. If America stops supporting Israeli oppression-- let's be fair and add an end to most other aspects of U.S. foreign policy in the middle east, too-- the angry mob of oppressed will likely stop chanting "death to America." At least they'll have less reason for it.

[msmcghee]

22. I can assure that the most likely outcome of . .

. . withdrawal of US support for Israel would start a chain of events that would likely end in a nuclear war and the deaths of millions throughout the world.

The future of the world depends at this moment, more than at any other time in the history of civilization, on the commitment of good people to prevent outlaw regimes from starting wars and condemning those who do start them as pariahs.

Period.

[newyorican]

53. If what you say is true...

then the creation of Israel has been a grave error.

[ShawnGreen]

54. Especially For Those Who Intend Her Harm

eom

[breakaleg]

9. you may find it inspiring, but Harper and his policies have about

as much support from the general public in Canada as Bush does in the US.

[msmcghee]

14. Yes, well I have yet to see . .

. . a statement from Canada's elected leaders in support of Hizbullah and against Israel's defense of its borders and citizens. I happen to know quite a few Canadians myself and none of them have expressed that view either.

Added on edit: But they are as completely and totally against Bush as I am.

I remember on Sept. 12, 2001, I was fishing on a lake up in BC. A guy on shore who I had met earlier was yelling out updates on the situation to me every 20 minutes or so.

In my experience Canadians generally don't like people who start wars any more than (most) Americans and most anybody who lives in the free world.

Your hatred for the right and the lengths you are willing to go to express it - is a burden for the left.

[breakaleg]

18. so many things to address:

I like the line "against Israel's defense of its borders and citizens" - that's your opinion, not a statement of fact. So why would an elected leader respond to this opinion?

Canadians in general despise it when their leaders simply follow blindly in the policy of the US - they pride themselves on thinking for themselves and not yielding to pressure, as in Jean Chretien.

And your assertion that Canadians don't like people who start wars in correct. In this case ISRAEL started this war. Anything else is your opinion.

You are making assumptions about me without knowing a thing about me.

[The Magistrate]

32. How Did Israel Start This War, Sir?

Did Israel arrange for Nasrallah to order an attack on one of its border patrols?

Certainly Mr. Olmert chose to engage in the manner that he did, but it is hard to argue sensibly that had Nasrallah not turned his armed men to the attack of the patrol, Israeli forces would have been assailing Lebanon this past July.

[breakaleg]

33. From what we now know, Israel has been planning for this war

for a while, and chose to over-react to a border skirmish to start the war.

Let's not forget whose forces are currently on who's soil.

[The Magistrate]

35. So What, Sir?

My plans for the coming evening include several dark delights, but that does not mean they are going to occur without some co-operation by other parties, at a minimum....

The fact that plans existed to engage Hezbollah at some future date hardly demonstrates that they would have been put into effect last month absent the attack sanctioned by Nasrallah. Nor does the outcome, in terms of whose troops stand where, demostrate anything about how the conflict commenced: U.S. troops stood on the soil of Imperial Japan in the late summer of '45, but that hardly speaks to who commenced the fight between them and us.

[breakaleg]

36. This is a vicious circle.

Didn't you say above that "a tremendous degree of effort is expended in arguing that because people were provoked in some way, then they absolutely had to respond in the manner they did."

I am not trying to take your words out of context. I'm simply saying that Israel chose to respond they way they did. Hezbollah may have provoked them, but they've provoked Israel many times without this result. And provocation alone does not absolve Israel for responsibility of it's actions. They invaded Lebanon, not the other way around. They inflicted far greater civilian and physical damage on Lebanon than the other way around.

I think it would be useless at this point to debate who we each believe started this war. There has been much debate over this issue and there appear to be two schools of thought, and we will likely not agree.

[The Magistrate]

47. That It Is, Sir

And you will get no argument from me that Mr. Olmert chose his course and is responsible for it, and all the consequences flowing from it, just as it would surprise me to get much argument from you Nasrallah chose his course and is responsible for it, and all consequences flowing from it. But you stated "Israel started this war", and further called that the only fact in the matter, and labelled any other statement as only opinion. That, Sir, could hardly be allowed to pass unremarked: you would probably acknowledge on reflection it was rather a bold overstatement. The best that coud really be maintained is that it is your opinion Israel started this war, and that there sound ground from which to argue that it was Nasrallah who started it. For it remains a fact that absent Nasrallah's action, Mr. Olmert would not have assailed Lebanon this past July, even if he desired to do it, as he would have lacked any suitable pretext for such an action, and a decent pretext is essential nowadays. Further, it remains a fact that absent the campagn pressed by Hezbollah over the previous six years, there would have been a condition of peace on the border between Israel and Lebanon that would have made any Israeli onslaught over it quite literally unthinkable in the present day. That people are responsible for their responses to provocation, and choose them, does not alter the soundness of advice not to poke sticks at things that can bite off your head if the mood takes them.

[ShawnGreen]

55. "I think it would be useless at this point to debate who we each believe

started this war."

You already did.

[Englander]

49. This guy sounds like an apologist for war crimes, frankly.

Which is ironical, given his political history, & vocation.

http://www.irwincotler.parl.gc.ca/biography.asp?lang=en

[The Magistrate]

51. He Sounds Like A Decent Enough Fellow, Sir

That with his background and knowledge he takes a different view of the matter than you hardly qualifies him for denunciation as an apologist for war crimes. Regarding this most recent episode, it is not even established that war crimes have occured, though some have expressed as their opinion that they have, which makes it rather hard to soundly accuse anyone of being an apologist for them, since that would require certainty that they have occured in order to be a subject for apologetics.

[Englander]

52. He does, I admit.

But I think he's profoundly wrong & mistaken on this occasion, I feel he is not using his expertise
to address what has actually happened, but is focusing on what he believes might possibly happen. I
would be interested to what his opinion was regarding the specifics of the bombing of Lebanon, I note
that the article didn't mention the activities of the Israeli forces. If he were to focus on those
details, I feel that a witness with his expertise would also come to the conclusion that, yes, war
crimes were committed.

[The Magistrate]

65. This Is Only Speculation, Certainly, Sir

But his view on that might well be that both parties to the Middle Eastern conflicts commit war crimes, so that this is not a very useful criterion, and other areas must be looked towards to determine which side, if any, ought to enjoy one's support.

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. PLEASE people DEAL with REALITY!

I might personally wish that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah did not exist. In fact I DO wish groups like Hamas and Hezbollah did not exist. But they do exist. And they are integral parts of their own societies. They can no more be eliminated militarily than the Republican Party in American can be eliminated militarily.

I might personally wish groups like Hamas and Hezbollah could be excluded diplomatically. In fact I DO wish groups like Hamas and Hezbollah could be excluded diplomatically. But groups like Hamas and Hezbollah can no more be excluded diplomatically than the Likud Party in Israel can be excluded diplomatically if one is actually serious about wanting peace and security. They hold far too much influence. This is the world of reality.

I might wish that the Israeli state had a wonderful, exemplary and stellar human rights record. In fact I DO wish that the Israeli state had a wonderful, exemplary and stellar human rights record. But that is simply not true. CHECK THE RECORD of any credible, independent human rights organization in the world that monitors these matters, especially Israeli ones. They all seem to report almost exactly the same things. Can they all be just making things up? The author is right that state sponsored racism is wrong and it is just as wrong for our allies as it is for our opponents.

And for the record, Hamas who I wish did not even exist has indicated that they are prepared to accept a two-state solution. I don't like those guys. But this is reality. Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/04/28/MN222422.DTL

Living in the land of fantasy and make believe might create a tough feel good feeling. But it will not help the security of the people in Israel or anywhere else - much less bring a just and lasting peace to the region. And it will not help the Democratic Party when failed and misguided policies help drag America and the Middle East into further catastrophe.

[bemildred]

63. Hmmmmm.

:thumbsup:
:popcorn:

[breakaleg]

66. this is what we need - a voice of reason.