Comments on: “The Whole World’s Raining Down…”

by: B&Massa

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:09:48 +0000

Springsteen’s version of War, way back when I was a kid, was what turned me onto actually thinking about what my starting opinion should be on war. Basically, war is the last resort of diplomatic failures. Seems there’s not a diplomat left in service.

by: livingin

Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:25:38 +0000

That’s a big part of what I meant, though just something the Israelis are doing now. It’s what the U.S. routinely does, as well. So another part of my point was that all of this carnage we’re seeing on the news, all of the people who have lost their homes, etc, are an example of what we usually don’t see when one of the combatants is the United States.

But what to do, morally speaking, if one were to find themselves in a situation that required a military defense? You have to go in on the ground, not eventually but from the first shot, and accept that your side is going to take a huge number of casualties. if the cause is truly necessary, it will be a cost that most Americans, Israelis, whoever, would willingly stand in line to pay. And if the cost seems too high, why are you there in the first place? But other people–women, children, civilians, etc–don’t get to pay your costs in your stead.

by: Austin

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:28:22 +0000

I’m did not mean to accuse either of you of being lazy; if you two both had rockets, I’m sure you wouldn’t kill each other over your differences and that’s refreshing. I’m simply saying that what you disagree about is not the premise you claim to disagree about, and if it were, one of you would be blatantly wrong. You disagree, but about something else entirely. At this point I side with Roy, not only because diplomacy is an option and it has worked in the past but because there are other options. Isreal is not being “suicidal” by any means; they’re far and away the greater military power and have the backing of the greatest military powers in the world. This is not to claim that they are not at risk, but they’ve certainly got the biggest arsenal and the most powerful army. Hezbollah has some shoulder rockets they got from Iran that can’t hit the side of a barn, but CAN manage to kill civilians indiscriminately. That’s the only weapon they’ve got.. What Isreal is up to is sending a message, a message Sharon would never have allowed and refused to send in the past, that Isreal is not to be perceived as weak after their withdrawel from the territories. It’s all about deterrrence. As for your quesiton about what Isreal should do, in the past they have engaged in reciprocity based military operations that target Lebanese political or military structures. That’s the way reciprocity is SUPPOSED to work. The point of David’s post I take it is that they are now instead engaging in indiscriminate airstrikes which kill children, which is NOT the way reciprocity is supposed to work.

by: Nina

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:07:13 +0000

I’m not being lazy, nor is Roy. We are refusing to allow our very serious differences of opinion about certain facts and their interpretation to culminate in a heated argument in this forum. I would have thought that that was obvious.

by: Austin

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:41:35 +0000

It’s not sufficient to say you disagree on the premise and part ways. You just can’t both be right. The premise “all [negotiations gets them is more bombings, attacks and kidnappings” is a premise the truth of which is determined by facts. It is a premise that shouldn’t devolve into the lazy relativism of undergraduates. Clean that premise up and make it clear, and you can’t really disagree about it without one party being irrational. Are “bombings, attacks and kidnappings” ALL negotiations have gotten the Isrealis in the past? Really? If that’s not all that it’s gotten them in the past, does that not mean there is some moral responsibility for pursuing those avenues again before bombing civilians?

by: Nina

Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:25:33 +0000

Yes, I guess we disagree about the premise. And that’s all I’m going to say about that.

by: Roy

Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:48:58 +0000

I guess we disagree about the premise, Nina: “all [negotiations] gets them is more bombings, attacks and kidnappings.” I think that’s incorrect. Negotiations haven’t begotten any of those things. Decades of eye-for-an-eyeism on all sides have.

by: Nina

Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:32:17 +0000

Well, see, if I were in charge over there I think I would have gone with negotiation from the outset of the latest round of violence. But as you point out, Roy, the Israelis have negotiated before. And all it gets them is more bombings, attacks, and kidnappings. How often does a government go through that before they decide it’s not worth it? I think they’re wrong–I think they’re being suicidal. But I don’t find it easy to fulminate about it, because I think all that negotiation does is to push the current violence off into the future, the next time or the time after next that there’s a provocation. It doesn’t actually resolve anything. Do you have any suggestions for actions that might start to resolve things?

by: Roy

Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:39:36 +0000

Hezbollah is a shitty, dangerous neighbor, but the fact is that neighbor hadn’t caused a single Israeli civilian casualty since Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000.

Israel has negotiated prisoner exchanges and cease fires with their enemies before; they could do that now, rather than continuing with a blatant policy of collective punishment of civilians–which, far from “degrading” (ick and sic) Hezbollah (or Hamas), is only going to strengthen popular support for the movements in the long run.

by: Nina

Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:45:30 +0000

BTW, David (and Roy), what do you think the Israelis ought to be doing right now? I’m not asking this as a rhetorical gotcha kind of question; I’m serious. I think that what they are doing is atrocious (in all senses of that word) but I can’t think of preferable alternatives. I’d like to think that there are some that I am missing, but (well, by definition) I’m missing them. Got any?