To be fair, once they found out, they fired him and pulled all 930 of his pictures. Dunno if you can really implicate Reuters - it's not like they asked him to doctor his photos.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Did you really expect this topic not to have a slant to it?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well according to the link, it's not just one photographer, or one news agency even. And the site does make a convincing case for photo-fraud. Regardless of the politics around these particular photos, it would be nice to see this followed up by news agencies "cleaning house" and at least trying to regain some semblance of objectivity and honesty.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: To be fair, once they found out, they fired him and pulled all 930 of his pictures. Dunno if you can really implicate Reuters - it's not like they asked him to doctor his photos.
It isn't just about Hajj. Did you read the page?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Maybe it's just me, but I commented to my mom last night, while watching the TV news -- that there sure seems to be LOTS of video coverage shown of all the destruction in Lebanon, but they are hardly showing any video of the Israel side - the aftermath of the Hezbollah bombing there. Are there only reporters on one side of the line?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Wow, very disturbing. It'd be nice if they used it to clean house, as Karl said, but I suspect they'll just be smarter and more careful with the fraud in the future.
It seems like there really out to be special penalties against the press that abuses their freedom to spread lies.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Sorry, Lisa. I had read a couple articles about it yesterday, and incorrectly assumed that was a link to the same story.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
NP. There does seem to be a sense of deja vu in the various types of deception being perpetrated.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure if I'm going to say this just to annoy Lisa, or if I really believe it, but...
While I think those pictures are reprehensible, and those responsible should be fired immediately (and if it's possible, blacklisted from news outlets, not really sure how that works, but dishonest reporting like that should mean a life time ban)...
I have to say that the some outrage is justified, but try not to go overboard. At the end of the day, the fact is that the buildings are still flattened, the people are still dead. I think due punishment should be exacted on all those responsible for this, but I don't think it takes all that much away from the ultimate message the pictures are trying to portray.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
We don't know that the people are still dead. We've seen Green Helmet Guy waving corpses around in multiple pictures, but they're all the same corpse. And we don't know that it came from that building. And we don't know how the building fell. And we can't believe a damned thing that they say, so I don't think any outrage is justified in our direction.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Really? So Reuters screws up, then comes right back and removes all information that was proven wrong...
And that automatically disproves EVERYTHING said by EVERY other news agency on EARTH?
Skynews, BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera, MSNBC, Fox, AP, all of them, all wrong because Reuters was proved dishonest.
I mean, I guess we'd better stop reading western news entirely and just read YOUR Israeli news sources right? That's the most fair and balanced way to do it.
edit to add: I meant that some outrage from us towards them was justified, not any outrage to non-news sources.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, actually, to a point you're right that it disproves almost everything (even though you were saying it satirically)
Having worked in the news industry, I can say that all those news outlets SHARE information greatly. So yes, what Reuters does, DOES, in fact, effect CNN, and MSNBC and FOX and all the others who pick up Reuters releases, etc. Most of the major news organizations rely on Reuters and AP for breaking stuff.
That's why when ONE thing gets distorted, it creates a snowballing effect that makes it almost impossible to fix (this is why there are so many urban legends).
I do think this has bigger consequences than many people realize.
FG
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
You also have to take into account media releases like this where the Lebanese PM made a statement that an Israeli airstrike killed 40 people...
quote:"An hour ago, there was a horrific massacre in the village of Houla in which more than 40 martyrs were victims of deliberate bombing", Siniora told the meeting. "If these horrific actions are not state terrorism then what is state terrorism?" he asked rhetorically.
He later admitted the death toll was only 1 person.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Maybe it's just me, but I commented to my mom last night, while watching the TV news -- that there sure seems to be LOTS of video coverage shown of all the destruction in Lebanon, but they are hardly showing any video of the Israel side - the aftermath of the Hezbollah bombing there. Are there only reporters on one side of the line?
Israel gives plenty of warning before it drops bombs or blows things up. Hezbolah rockets can hit anywhere in northern Israel at any time and they often do not have an intended target.
As a reporter what would you be more afraid of? The Israeli airforce or Hezbolah rockets?
As for Reuters. They certainly do not have time to carefully examin every photo they receive for evidence of photoshopping or tampering. The fact that people were calling for the suspension of the photographer, and Reuters simply fired him, and said they will not work with him again, indicates that they are interested in presenting the news, and not in any slanted way.
I still trust Reuters, they did not try to weasel out of this one. They took responsibility and made the neccesary steps to rectify the problem. It was 2 photographs, and we do not even know if any news agencies picked up the photographs.
edited for spelling/grammar
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Did you read Lisa's article? It was a lot more than 2 pictures.
If these pictures are faked, why should I trust reporters that quote unnamed sources or quote some dirt farmer in Lebanon? How much easier is it to fake words than photographs. The fact that photographs are being used dishonestly really makes me legimately question the integrity of the entire business.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Today's Day By Day was great.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That highlights what I didn't like about the initial link. I think the evidence is exactly right - those photos were faked in way or another.
I didn't like the possible reasons for it, because it left out the most obvious - those pictures made for more exciting copy, which sells more papers. It isn't necessary for anyone to be in cahoots with Hezbollah for that to occur. It's much more likely that it was done out of self-interest than out of loyalty to a foreign organization.
quote:They certainly do not have time to carefully examin every photo they receive for evidence of photoshopping or tampering.
Yes, they do. If they are not able to at least give it a glance to ensure they aren't printing fake news, then they need to reorganize their business. That's part of the freedom of the press. It's a powerful pulpit, and that means those who use it have a responsibility.
The photoshopped ones especially were embrassing. As a Photoshop user, I'm ashamed of the photographer. He's not very good - there are much better ways to darken and fake smoke.
[ August 10, 2006, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think due punishment should be exacted on all those responsible for this, but I don't think it takes all that much away from the ultimate message the pictures are trying to portray.
Of course it takes away from the 'ultimate message', which is supposed to be "we will tell you what was said and done in places you cannot be." The truth, in other words.
Any 'ultimate message' you're hinting at is political, and not objective as news outlets should strive towards. You're trying out for the limbo championships when you suggest people shouldn't be too outraged, Lyrhawn.
In fact, the people who should be most outraged are those the pictures were (possibly) doctored to help-Lebanese people. By being provably fraudulent as they are, it casts further doubt on the Lebanese side of things in the future and lends credibility to the Israeli take on things.
Posted by Sopwith, again (Member # 9457) on :
I think, personally, that Hezbollah and its ilk are much more sophisticated when it comes to public relations than most of us give them credit for. Beyond the doctored photos, which were reprehensible, Hezbollah has made it a point to keep the camera on their plight.
But, by the same token, it is chafing with their general nature. Journalists have been threatened implicitly when they filmed the launching of rockets.
Honestly, I believe Hezbollah is acting like a popular bully after he's been hit in the nose. He's screaming and grabbing attention, pointing that all the blame is on the little kid who stood up to him.
I'm so deeply moved by the civilian casualties, they disturb me greatly. But does a Hezbollah member count as a civilian since they aren't part of a recognized army?
And last night on the news, a military expert said that the Israelis have actually been running into elements of a frontline Iranian infantry division. I'm not sure if it is true, but it isn't beyond the realm of possibility. All of those weapons made it into Lebanon, surely "advisors" could have come with them.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:He's screaming and grabbing attention, pointing that all the blame is on the little kid who stood up to him.
It's actually more like the little annoying troublemaker who kicks the big kid in class, then makes a huge fuss about how the kid hit him back, hoping to get him in trouble. Of course, as soon as the teacher looks away, the little brat invariably kicks him again.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Good analogy.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
This article puts it very well.
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
Scary article, the original that is.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm horrified at the second. The response was all out of porportion to the original.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
This is a huge scandal and it’s not just limited to Reuters. Time Magazine’s coverage is also in question. It’so-clear-staged-its-a-wonder-they-bought-it Lebanese Pieta picture. http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005687.htm There’s also the U.S.News cover-photo of a Hezbollah armed-terrorist in front of what the magazine purported to be the burning ruins of a downed-Israeli fighter, only there was no downed fighter and it was a garbage dump that was burning.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The response is horrifying and out of proportion, and it is unfortunate that this situation has gotten to this point.
However, the second article is on point, in my opinion. If Israel lets up and backs off, it is a great victory for Hezbollah. They withstood the might of the west and lived to launch their rockets another day - even better, making their opponent look weak and heartless in the process.
What Lebanon should do is ally with Israel in their efforts to root out and eliminate Hezbollah. The Lebanese military should strike at Hezbollah targets they know to exist to show Israel and the world that it is not afraid to cut out the cancer in its own country. It should share intelligence with Israel about known Hezbollah agents and coordinate efforts to stop the attacks on Israel from within its own borders.
Instead, Lebanon is calling for ceasefires and withdrawl and effectively protecting the terrorists in their midst.
Posted by Sopwith, again (Member # 9457) on :
The article starLisa put up was a very interesting one. I feel it speaks the truth about what sadly will have to happen.
And I really feel that we, the US, shouldn't interfere. On behalf of either side. We can't shield Hezbollah and let them go on to terrorize another day. And we can't help Israel, either. Israel has to, and will, fight this on its own, showing that it can and will defend itself with or without outside support.
And they have to do it so that down the road, some anti-Israel group can't say, "they only survived before because the US stepped in."
Sad, but true, when someone calls for war and provokes it, they often get exactly what they were asking for.
And don't expect Lebanon's Prime Minister to force Hezbollah out, just remember what happened to the last one when he tried to sever ties with Syria.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why is warfare one does not start have to be proportional on the part of the provoked?
Israel's enemies do not permit it a proportional response.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Israel's enemies do not permit it a proportional response.
I dislike this - it is denying responsibility for their own choices. If the choices are justified, then they need to claim them.
Posted by Sopwith, again (Member # 9457) on :
Actually, I don't see the Israelis hedging their actions or being apologetic. I believe their continued actions speak as their claim to being proportionate to the threat they have faced.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: I'm horrified at the second. The response was all out of porportion to the original.
Shadows of Ender and Bonzo?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm horrified at the second. The response was all out of porportion to the original.
Um... the second what?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I love Ender, but I don't think he's a role model.
The second link.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Did you read Lisa's article? It was a lot more than 2 pictures.
If these pictures are faked, why should I trust reporters that quote unnamed sources or quote some dirt farmer in Lebanon? How much easier is it to fake words than photographs. The fact that photographs are being used dishonestly really makes me legimately question the integrity of the entire business.
I read an article about it, then saw lisa's post, THEN went to her link which was more expansive. I must confess the NYT's section made me raise an eyebrow.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
What's interesting is that the government of Israel gets a lot of its information from the news. As a result, they apologize for things before they've even had a chance to check and see if there's something to apologize for.
If that seems unlikely to you, let me tell you about the first Gulf War. I was living in Jerusalem at the time, and they'd distributed boxes with gas masks and epipens and the like after Iraq invaded Kuwait and Bush Sr. had given his ultimatum.
The first time Saddam shot scuds at us, this is how I found out about it.
My cousin Jeff, in Washington DC, was watching CNN when the first scuds were fired. He picked up the phone and called my cousin Kevin, who was also living in Jerusalem. He woke Kevin up and told him Saddam had fired missiles at us. Kevin then got off the phone, and called me, waking me up as well. He told me that Jeff had called him to tell him that he'd seen scuds being launched at us on CNN. While I was talking to Kevin, the air raid sirens went off.
So whatever people think about Israel's intelligence or early warning capabilities, I'm here to tell you that they really aren't all that sharp.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I dislike this - it is denying responsibility for their own choices. If the choices are justified, then they need to claim them.
And they don't, somehow?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's my understanding that quite often for governments throughout the world, CNN and other 24/7 news sources are the first source heard.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Israel's enemies do not permit it
That puts the responsibility for Isreal's actions in the hands of their enemies.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not in my mind. There is always the other option, in fact I believe you've mentioned it before-capitulation and departure.
I do credit that as a possible option in the sense that I believe there are always choices...but there are some choices, even when present, I don't expect a reasonable person to make, or be morally required to do so.
Aside from the point that getting up and leaving becomes less and less tolerable after being booted or burned or exterminated out of so many other homes in the past millenia.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:in fact I believe you've mentioned it
Was this to me? Because I haven't said that - at all. You must have been thinking of someone else.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
If you poke a sleeping bear with a stick, don't be surprised if you get mauled.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Rakeesh, I believe that was kmboots.
--j_k
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
D'oh! Sorry, I was getting my Katies confused, I apologize *wince*
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
few random thoughts/questions regarding this.
I used to consider Reuters a respectable news agency much like the AP, but now see them alot closer to National Enquirer instead. Has this always been the case?
Also, the press is generally considered the governments watchdog. What happens when an organization like Reuters apparently goes bad like this? I don't know if other news agencies will run major stories on it because I am under the impression that other companies purchased stories from Reuters. Its mainly been bloggers who are talking/running this story. Companies like CNN and MSNBC may be hesitant to run any story critical of a key supplier.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
The people who pay for their services.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TrapperKeeper: I used to consider Reuters a respectable news agency much like the AP, but now see them alot closer to National Enquirer instead. Has this always been the case?
Yes, it's pretty much always been the case. At least in two areas. One is that whenever you read a small article that sounds like something they'd love at News of the Weird, you can bet 9 times out of 10 that it's a Reuters piece. And the other is that Reuters has always had a very strong anti-Israel agenda. But then, so does the BBC.
quote:Originally posted by TrapperKeeper: Also, the press is generally considered the governments watchdog. What happens when an organization like Reuters apparently goes bad like this? I don't know if other news agencies will run major stories on it because I am under the impression that other companies purchased stories from Reuters. Its mainly been bloggers who are talking/running this story. Companies like CNN and MSNBC may be hesitant to run any story critical of a key supplier.
It will blow over. The MSM has too much to lose if they don't minimize this and make it seem like a minor glitch that was fixed right away.
In the end, there will be slightly more people who will know to take Reuters reporting with a grain of salt, and slightly more (but fewer) who will recognize that the MSM isn't quite as objective a source as it claims to be. That's a good thing, in my opinion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I think due punishment should be exacted on all those responsible for this, but I don't think it takes all that much away from the ultimate message the pictures are trying to portray.
Of course it takes away from the 'ultimate message', which is supposed to be "we will tell you what was said and done in places you cannot be." The truth, in other words.
Any 'ultimate message' you're hinting at is political, and not objective as news outlets should strive towards. You're trying out for the limbo championships when you suggest people shouldn't be too outraged, Lyrhawn.
In fact, the people who should be most outraged are those the pictures were (possibly) doctored to help-Lebanese people. By being provably fraudulent as they are, it casts further doubt on the Lebanese side of things in the future and lends credibility to the Israeli take on things.
So, you think that there really isn't a problem in Lebanon? People are happily skipping through the streets of Beirut on their way to bomb shelters with all that warning they get from the nice Israeli F-16s overhead. Their really aren't any bombed out apartment buildings, or dead civilians, or destroyed roads and bridges, or power stations, or ambulances, or etc. etc.
If you think all of that is true, or that all of that is purely a political message, then you must REALLY think I'm brainwashed by the media. I agree that the Lebanese people should be more angry at the faked up photos, and for the same reason, because it gives people like Lisa a chace to exclaim "See! It's NOT as bad as they say it is," before they launch into their "they deserve it anyway," speech.
Doctored photos that add smoke and such to a picture doesn't take anything away from the fact that there was smoke there to begin with, that bombs fell over Beirut to begin with, using the same smashed building in a photo twice in two weeks doesn't remove the fact that the same building was already smashed up.
I also don't buy, whoever said it, that everyone gets their news from Reuters and AP. Yes, I agree that to BEGIN WITH, they might, because they have sources everywhere to start with, and can be in more places, and get more stuff out. But THIRTY days after a crisis begins, everyone in the world who has the capacity already has stuff at the situation, they have their own cameras, and their own reporters, photographers, networks, etc. Trying to put a black mark on everyone just because one of the first responders screwed up is ridiculous.
Any btw Lisa, the analogy in that article is horrible. The better analogy is that the little guy picks a fight with the big Marine, and then the Marine responds by beating the ever loving hell out of EVERYONE ELSE in the bar instead of the guy who picked it, who ran to the bathroom whilst the Marine wasn't looking.
I'm pissed that these guys faked up those photos, for the reason I agreed with you earlier on Rakeesh, but that doesn't mean I'm going to forget the fact that civilians are still dying, ambulances ARE being bombed, people are cutoff from escape, the infrastructure of what was a recovering nation is blown to hell, and the entire population is suffering more than just fear of a possible missile strike.
THAT is the ultimate truth, and while there IS political hay to be made from it, reality, the original photographs, isn't inherently political.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
What's interesting about reading Lyrhawn's post is that in EVERY rebuttal he attempts to make, he misrepresents what the point was of the original poster.
This is the moment these threads usually go off track, and become about everybody trying to explain and defend their original positions..
"I never said they deserved it."
"I never said the Lebanese were happy about the bombings."
"I never said everyone gets their news from Rueters and AP."
"I never tried to put a black mark on everyone."
"I never made that analogy."
etc.
I wonder if it's a willful distortion by one indvidual in an actual ATTEMPT to throw the thread off course, or if it is more of an unrealized thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow, talk about misrepresentations. I'll say it real fast, because I think it's somewhat amusing, and before it goes too far.
I never said that anyone said that anyone deserved anything.
I never said that anyone said that Lebanon was happy about the bombings.
My point about getting news from Reuters was a direct response to Farmgirl's earlier post on the effect Reuters has on the rest of the news agencies. She said that many of the agencies rely on the two of them initially, which I agreed to, but the rest of her assertion, on the greater effect on the news as a whole, I don't think is valid given the number of agencies that have resources in the area 30 days after a crisis starts. And she also made the point that these things tend to snowball, which I think may have some truth to it, but I also think it depends on the story, where it is, what kind of information there is about it, which agency is doing it, etc. But the overall effect is that there's an overall black mark on the news, because one guy screwed up, and I don't think that's a fair assertion.
She didn't make the analogy, but it was made in the second article she linked.
Anything else you want to skew?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
To those of you who think the mainstream media is out to personally thwart you and/or your pet cause:
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
This is really worth reading, especially for you, starLisa:
quote: Partisans, it turns out, don't just arrive at different conclusions; they see entirely different worlds . In one especially telling experiment, researchers showed 144 observers six television news segments about Israel's 1982 war with Lebanon.
Pro-Arab viewers heard 42 references that painted Israel in a positive light and 26 references that painted Israel unfavorably.
Pro-Israeli viewers, who watched the very same clips, spotted 16 references that painted Israel positively and 57 references that painted Israel negatively.
Both groups were certain they were right and that the other side didn't know what it was talking about.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Thanks for posting that link, Kasie. I often have to make a conscious effort to try to keep my views and circumstances (e.g. in this case, I have relatives in Lebanon) from colouring my take on the news too much. It's something that I try to keep in mind, and try to compensate for as best I can, but it's easy to forget. I found this part particularly interesting:
quote:Ross thinks this is because partisans often feel the news lacks context. Instead of just showing a missile killing civilians, in other words, partisans on both sides want the news to explain the history of events that prompted -- and could have justified -- the missile. The more knowledgeable people are, the more context they find missing.
I certainly feel this way -- that is, that news reports about this or that issue invariably omit a lot of relevant context. I guess I need to try to be more cognizant of the fact that the news can't provide much context because of the space and time constraints inherent in reporting the news in a timely manner.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The better analogy is that the little guy picks a fight with the big Marine, and then the Marine responds by beating the ever loving hell out of EVERYONE ELSE in the bar instead of the guy who picked it, who ran to the bathroom whilst the Marine wasn't looking.
Your analogy leaves out the part where the trying to pick a fight amounts to hurling lethal weapons at the marine on a frequent basis for years, EVERYONE ELSE helps hide the little guy, the bar owner refuses to do anything about it despite having a moral and sovereign obligation to do so, and the actions of the marine are aimed at stopping both the little guy from getting away and the organized crime boss down the street from slipping the little guy a gun.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I find it interesting that some people are finding it so easy to blame the Lebanese government for not doing anything about Hezbollah when, at the same time, this is shaping up to be the most difficult test that the vastly superior Israeli army has had to face in years.
Either Hezbollah is a bunch of amateurs who should've been easily routed, or they are cunning, well-trained, and well-equipped. It can't be one direction when you are blaming Lebanon and another when feeling empathy for the Israeli army.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Except that the Lebanese government has a number of advantages when dealing with Hezbollah that Israel does not -- advantages they have completely wasted:
Time: it has been how many years since Israel pulled out? And they have done nothing.
Local advantage: There's a lot more the U.S. can do to ferret out problematic citizens (especially given the time aspect) than say, Mexico can. Even if Mexico were to try to take back Texas. All kinds of non-military options were available to them.
The Lebanese government has not merely not gone after Hezbollah, it has aided and abetted them. Money, supplies -- there was no effort made to ensure that government funds were not channeled to them, and since they are PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, you can be sure that funds and supplies certainly were. (I have seen claims of proof of such, but have yet to see any proof myself.)
Fighting an internal enemy and going after an enemy in another country is really not the same thing. And it's rather disingenuous to imply that it is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I find it interesting that some people are finding it so easy to blame the Lebanese government for not doing anything about Hezbollah when, at the same time, this is shaping up to be the most difficult test that the vastly superior Israeli army has had to face in years.
Either Hezbollah is a bunch of amateurs who should've been easily routed, or they are cunning, well-trained, and well-equipped. It can't be one direction when you are blaming Lebanon and another when feeling empathy for the Israeli army.
Bob, it's not a question of whether Lebanon could do something about Hezbollah's attacks on Israel. If Lebanon could stop Hezbollah and hasn't, then Lebanon is complicit in those attacks and Israel is justified in using military force to stop Hezbollah. If Lebanon can't stop Hezbollah, then Hezbollah is the de facto sovereign of that territory and Israel is attacking a sovereign power in response to acts of war committed by that sovereign power.
Acts of war were committed against Israel from Lebanon. Israel is justified in using military force to stop those acts and ensure they stay stopped, whether the government which claims to be sovereign over that territory is capable of stopping the attacks or not.
*Note that I didn't say Israel would be justified in using any force they desired - this concerns the threshold issue of whether military force is justified at all, not how much. At the extreme end, Israel would not be justified in dropping a nuke on Beruit right now.
In other words, it's not a question of blame, but responsibility. If a parent fails to control his child, a person is allowed to restrain the child who is kicking him in the knee if necessary, whether the parent could have controlled the child or not.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I didn't say Israel was attacking without some justification.
I just don't understand the dual views of Hezbollah as being this nothing entity that surely Lebanon could've thwarted by now if they'd only been "better parents" versus the view (fast emerging) that Hezbollah is really tough as nails and well organized...
I realize that Hezbollah has seats in Lebanese government too. I just was commenting on the duality.
Responsibility is akin to affixing blame when the child misbehaves, no? I mean, if the child causes damage, standard practice is to seek restitution from the responsible parent or guardian.
I don't see a very strong wall between those two terms. And I don't really get how Hezbollah can be one thing viewed from one perspective and another thing viewed from a different perspective.
Truth be told, they are ruthless, well-equipped, and well integrated into the "fabric" of that section of the country. Rooting them out would not be easy for any conventional military or government. I can completely understand a weak government like the one in Lebanon deciding that it didn't have the ability to really be affective against that particular group. At least not on their "home turf."
Expecting Lebanon to tear itself apart through the kind of civil war that would've resulted from an internal attept to wrest control of that region from Hezbollah is kind of naive.
Expecting Israel to put up with it would also be pretty naive.
I personally deplore the loss of civilian lives that goes along with this action. I would rather see peacekeepers there permanently and steady work toward disarmament. And in that scenario, every day without missiles being fired is a success, whether or not Hezbollah still exists or not.
The current path requires the destruction of Hezbollah. Which is perfectly fine by me, except that getting there also requires the death of civilians and serious damage to the Lebanese economy. I also think that the war is not going to stop terrorism as people hope. Even if Hezbollah is utterly crushed, the hatred toward Israel will have been fueled, and hatred toward the west will have been fueled. As a result, we can look forward to a new generation of terrorists rising in the aftermath, and using this incursion as a rallying cry. It's not really breaking the cycle. It's a major increase in violence that will make the aftermath seem peaceful in comparison, but will have ripple effects for a long time to come.
I'm not saying that Israel doesn't have the right to go after Hezbollah. What I am saying is that I wish there had been another way, and, even more, that I believe there IS another way.
A big "national time out" doesn't solve the underlying problems either -- I realize that. But what it does do, that war generally does not, is create an opportunity for future generations to try a different path.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dag - (in regards to the analogy talked about on the previous page)
Even that isn't an accurate description of the problem, though it does address issues that I left out. I think that also helps to serve my point though, that such "simple" analogies aren't anywhere near good enough to accurately describe the problem.
Rivka -
Time and geography don't really matter much if you don't haev the physical capacity to remove them. Israel is the best trained and best equipped army in the region, and after 30 days, they've arguably made little progress, and that's with tanks, daily air bombardments, and special forces.
You mean to suggest, that just because they are there, that the lack of ALL of those things, makes them that much better equipped to deal with Hezbollah?
And Israel may have left in 2000, but when did Syria pull out? I don't know how you expect a nation with limited military power to defeat an enemy that can't be defeated by the most powerful military in the region. I don't think Lebanon should have done NOTHING about it, and politically they haven't been, but what do you do when you don't have the ability to do anything? Especially when you just finally achieved real independence less than a year ago.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lebanon could not stop Hezbollah. The Lebanese government (not the Presdent, the Government -- its a parliamentary system) is anti-Hezbollah, anti-Syria (unless that's changed in the past couple of weeks, which is possible), and Hezbollah has been long subject to a disarmament pact (with the Lebanese government as one of the parties on the other side) that they have not complied with.
The Lebanese military was/is weak, while Hezbollah enjoyed much popular support in many areas of the country.
Now it is hard to discern who is opposed to who in Lebanon, because even opposing factions tend to agree on wanting Israel out and focus on that. Its not hard to understand that feeling, even for those who don't like Hezbollah.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Could they have eradicated them completely? No.
Could they have done more than they chose to do (less than nothing)? I think yes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're talking strictly in a military sense right?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: So, you think that there really isn't a problem in Lebanon? People are happily skipping through the streets of Beirut on their way to bomb shelters with all that warning they get from the nice Israeli F-16s overhead. Their really aren't any bombed out apartment buildings, or dead civilians, or destroyed roads and bridges, or power stations, or ambulances, or etc. etc.
Remind me never to voice opposition to the death penalty again. Doing so would mean I'm pro-crime, right?
*rolleyes*
This is shaping up just like the Al Gore thread. When a conveyer of a favored message is proven to be fraudulent and/or hypocritical, whatever you do...don't focus on the hypocrisy, because it's still a good message!
Even in a thread specifically about the misdeed, let's never for a second forget that within the many lies, there are still some kernels of truth.
Because after all, good ends make bad means less important. Another thing I find amusing: just how many people who voice opposition to 'the ends justifying the means' voice that opposition when it's their ends being worked towards.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:People are happily skipping through the streets of Beirut on their way to bomb shelters with all that warning they get from the nice Israeli F-16s overhead. Their really aren't any bombed out apartment buildings, or dead civilians, or destroyed roads and bridges, or power stations, or ambulances, or etc. etc.
quote:I never said that anyone said that Lebanon was happy about the bombings.
quote:I never said that anyone said that anyone deserved anything.
quote:It gives people like Lisa a chace to exclaim "See! It's NOT as bad as they say it is," before they launch into their "they deserve it anyway," speech.
quote:Anything else you want to skew?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Could you imagine the how different the outrage would be if one photographer employed at the White House doctored some photos like this? Rueters pretty much got a pass for this as they were able to pin it all on one person and no one is crying for the leadership to all be fired.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm quite sure he was being sarcastic, TL, but still, sarcasm comes from somewhere...in this case that appears to be the idea that, "OK, fine, they defrauded the public, but don't care very much about that...ultimately they were telling the truth, kind of. In a way."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kasie H: This is really worth reading, especially for you, starLisa:
Hi Kasie. My name is Lisa.
Anyway, this is one more example of "Two sides both think they're right and the other is wrong; therefore, it isn't possible that one side really is right and the other really is wrong. It must just be a matter of viewpoint, since, after all, they both think they're right and the other is wrong."
It doesn't get much more fallacious than that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I just don't understand the dual views of Hezbollah as being this nothing entity that surely Lebanon could've thwarted by now if they'd only been "better parents" versus the view (fast emerging) that Hezbollah is really tough as nails and well organized...
I realize that Hezbollah has seats in Lebanese government too. I just was commenting on the duality.
I didn't see the duality you mentioned, and I assumed you were seeing it in my version of the bar fight analogy.
I also don't see anyone who claimed Lebanon could have thwarted Hezbollah by now.
If you weren't referring to my bar-fight analogy, can you quote what you were referring to?
quote:Responsibility is akin to affixing blame when the child misbehaves, no? I mean, if the child causes damage, standard practice is to seek restitution from the responsible parent or guardian.
I don't see a very strong wall between those two terms.
Maybe we're using blame and responsibility differently. To me, blame carries the connotation of moral wrongdoing in some way, arising from an act or the failure to act. Responsibility is simply a duty. Blame can create responsibility - if someone causes a harm through moral wrongdoing, we're very comfortable assigning responsibility for correcting the harm to that person. Responsibility can also lead to blame if one fails to meet one's responsibility when one could have. However, the concepts are distinct, and each can exist without the other.
I've never liked the equating of responsibility with blame. In the example you gave, it's not clear that the parents are being held to "blame," even if they are being made responsible for recompense. This notion that there must be some blame in order to hold someone responsible for correcting a harm seems corrosive to the idea of a civil society. It's something I see a lot and it always bothers me.
This has come up in abortion debates before, with people who state that having sex creates a responsibility toward any child that results being accused of blaming others.
In this example, as I've stated, it doesn't matter whether Lebanon could have stopped Hezbollah.
In the example I gave, it doesn't matter if the parent is to blame or not. It simply matters that this kid is kicking someone, the person with responsibility for stopping the kid isn't doing so, therefore I have the right to do so.
The whole point of my post was that blame doesn't enter into it. Responsibility does.
quote:Expecting Lebanon to tear itself apart through the kind of civil war that would've resulted from an internal attept to wrest control of that region from Hezbollah is kind of naive. Expecting Israel to put up with it would also be pretty naive.
What I expect Lebanon to do is to either exercise the sovereign control that is there responsibility or to not raise that sovereignty when they not only fail to do so, but make it utterly clear they either cannot or will not do so. They had other options. They could have called for a peacekeeping force with the actual ability to use force.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lebanon could have done a heck of a lot more to thwart Hezbollah. I also think that the people there are responsible for its ability to function so well and continue to function even in the face of a major military offensive. At least that region of Lebanon has become a safe haven for Hezbollah.
How much of that is due to them being a bunch of thugs who'd kill your family if you don't let them use your house to store weapons, and how much of it is because the people truly believe that hatred towards Jews is a good thing, I believe is an open question.
I'm also not all that interested in negotiated settlements with the likes of Hezbollah. Given that, it probably means that some sort of military presence in South Lebanon is required, if only to police the countryside and stop military supplies from moving around. In some cases that is going to mean firing on people who are trying to do something. But in most cases it's just going to mean that people there have restricted movement for a time until disarmament and some arrests/expulsions can be arranged.
Another thing that would be worthwhile is developing the information on weapons and funding sources. There seems little doubt that the trail will at least lead to Iran, but who and how is going to be important. So is finding the other sources outside Iran.
First and foremost, the rockets into Israel and the Israeli takeover of South Lebanon both need to stop. I think a UN or other multi-national peacekeeping force needs to be in there.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I find it interesting that some people are finding it so easy to blame the Lebanese government for not doing anything about Hezbollah when, at the same time, this is shaping up to be the most difficult test that the vastly superior Israeli army has had to face in years.
You know, this myth of the Israeli super-army came about after 1967, when Israel managed to demolish the Egyptian airforce on the ground.
It's crap.
It's a myth, that's all. Aside from everything else, the Israeli army is completely hobbled by insane and incompetant politicians.
quote:From Ari Shavit's piece in today's Haaretz: There is no mistake Ehud Olmert did not make this past month. He went to war hastily, without properly gauging the outcome. He blindly followed the military without asking the necessary questions. He mistakenly gambled on air operations, was strangely late with the ground operation, and failed to implement the army's original plan, much more daring and sophisticated than that which was implemented. And after arrogantly and hastily bursting into war, Olmert managed it hesitantly, unfocused and limp. He neglected the home front and abandoned the residents of the north. He also failed shamefully on the diplomatic front.
It's been a miserable failure. To compare this with what Lebanon could have done by asserting its sovereignty over its own land -- accepting the lie that Lebanon actually cared about Hezbollah's genocidal preparations and actions -- is without any basis whatsoever.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Either Hezbollah is a bunch of amateurs who should've been easily routed, or they are cunning, well-trained, and well-equipped. It can't be one direction when you are blaming Lebanon and another when feeling empathy for the Israeli army.
It isn't. It's one direction when you're blaming Lebanon, and another when you're holding a completely unrealistic view of the Israeli army and the intelligence of its political masters.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:People are happily skipping through the streets of Beirut on their way to bomb shelters with all that warning they get from the nice Israeli F-16s overhead. Their really aren't any bombed out apartment buildings, or dead civilians, or destroyed roads and bridges, or power stations, or ambulances, or etc. etc.
quote:I never said that anyone said that Lebanon was happy about the bombings.
quote:I never said that anyone said that anyone deserved anything.
quote:It gives people like Lisa a chace to exclaim "See! It's NOT as bad as they say it is," before they launch into their "they deserve it anyway," speech.
quote:Anything else you want to skew?
Heh. Incidentally, thanks for posting that in the first place, TL. I probably would have fallen into his cute little trap for the umpteenth time otherwise.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: First and foremost, the rockets into Israel and the Israeli takeover of South Lebanon both need to stop. I think a UN or other multi-national peacekeeping force needs to be in there.
It doesn't work that way. First, the rockets hae to stop. Second, Hezbollah needs to be defanged. Permanently.
What on earth makes you think the UN can be trusted? They have aided and abetted Arab terrorism themselves.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know that Bob expects those things to happen simultaneously, Lisa. Stopping the rockets and stopping the invasion, I mean.
At the very least it would be ludicrous to expect Israel to stop while Hezbollah is still firing missiles.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Re: the credibility of Reuters, I don't think they will get a pass on this. I think people will generalize to distrust all media coverage.
I know I don't implicitly trust a thing I read or see. Amateur video shot at the scene...maybe. Everything else has had too much time to be spun one way or another.
Lisa,
The point isn't that Israel has a super-army. It is that Israel has far superior weaponry (and, one assumes, training) than the usual picture portrayed of Hezbollah when people are blaming the Lebanese government for not ousting or disarming it. And if Lebanon should've used its army against Hezbollah, it's at least worth comparing the Israeli army's success to what would've been likely/possible with the far less equipped/trained Lebanese army.
Embarking on a disastrous civil war is a lot to demand of a government that holds power tenuously to begin with.
Add to the mix the corruption (in every sense of the word) of government control by virtue of the presence of Hezbollah WITHIN that government, and I think the forces of good are the ones being thwarted there.
There are alternatives to full scale military action. Given that the rockets continue to be fired from the region, I do believe something else should be tried. I would rather seen peacekeepers and steady progress toward disarmament than a build-up of the Israeli incursion.
I think, long term, that would be in Israel's best interest too. Mainly because the current way, even if successful now, is going to make for more trouble in the future.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And if Lebanon should've used its army against Hezbollah, it's at least worth comparing the Israeli army's success to what would've been likely/possible with the far less equipped/trained Lebanese army.
Bob, the Lebanese government has access to intelligence and knowledge of the area and its people that the Israelis simply don't. That kind of thing can be far more important than superior training and weaponry in a war like this, against a numerically inferior but dispersed, hidden enemy.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rakeesh: Israel doesn't lack knowledge of the area, either. They occupied parts of Southern Lebanon for many years. Furthermore, Israel no doubt has had many spies in Lebanon, in the Lebanese government, and in Hizbullah, as they've had many years and available avenues to infiltrate them.
rivka: There's the civil war they fought and didn't want to return to (which was fought with the Lebanese government being against many groups, including Hizbollah). There's the 15 years after the civil war that they successfully fought to push the Syrian military (which provided substantial support to Hizbollah) out of the country, and while present might reignite civil war if any military move against Hizbollah were made.
The Lebanese government is not blameless, but they did try to disarm the militias (including Hizbollah, who defied the order), they did try to reduce Syrian (and by extension Hizbullah) influence in the country (and succeeded to an extent), and the current government (though its hard to tell who's in charge right now) was elected on an anti-Syria, anti-Hizbollah platform that helped lead to the ejection of Syrian armed forces.
The Lebanese government is not strong. Parts of the Lebanese government are for Hizbollah (in a general sense, not in a currently-preferred-to-Israel sense), including the President. But ignoring that there were efforts to contain Hizbollah will only lead to worse conflict. While Israel's efforts will (rightly) allow them to cripple Hizbollah's capabilities to strike against Israel for now, unless Israel is willing to conquer Lebanon outright, failing to acknowledge and recultivate the anti-militia efforts of the Lebanese government will only lead to greater waves of new terrorists being created in Lebanon.
Israel has two major problems, current terrorists and future terrorists. Acting against the former heedless of the effect on the latter does nothing to solve Israel's problems in the long run. You can kill all the current terrorists you want, but it does you no good if two spring up from each dead terrorist's remains. Action against future terrorists requires working in concert with people in the region sharing similar goals, at points, even if those people don't particularly like Israel either.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's certainly true, fugu. I suspect, though, that even though Israel is not totally ignorant of the area and its people, the Lebanese military and government probably know more.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Likely, though not necessarily very much. Even so, that doesn't mean they would have been very successful against Hizbollah, who essentially controlled a section of the country, and until 2005 enjoyed the backing of Syrian military forces in the country (which the Lebanese government worked on kicking out).
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't know that Bob expects those things to happen simultaneously, Lisa. Stopping the rockets and stopping the invasion, I mean.
At the very least it would be ludicrous to expect Israel to stop while Hezbollah is still firing missiles.
I agree that it would be ludicrous. I'm not 100% sure that you're right about what Bob was saying.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Or if Lyrhawn had been in charge of the paper.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lisa, that link gets an Access Denied page for me.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Huh. Maybe it's because I have a Blogger account. Try this instead.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks, I can see that.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag,
I think of the relationship between "blame" and "responsibility" somewhat reverse of what I think you're saying.
With responsibility comes the possibility of blame (for actions, etc.)
If someone blames me, that doesn't mean they are correct, or that I have responsibility.
If I accept blame, however, I must first have accepted responsibility.
Lisa,
I would expect Hezbollah to stop firing rockets into Israel before any Israeli pullout. I would also think it reasonable that one condition of Hezbollah's agreeing to that cease fire would be the expectation that Israel would pull out and stop firing on targets in Lebanon.
The two could happen simultaneously, or not. But I am not calling on Israel to stop firing first. I AM calling for an agreement immediately after which both sides will stop firing, and then we see where it goes from there. Ideally, the Israeli army would withdraw and be replaced by international peacekeepers in a stepwise fashion starting soon after the agreement is signed.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I hear you, Bob. I think Israel needs to ignore any such offer and keep going until Hezbollah doesn't exist any more. And frankly, I don't care if that means going to Teheran. Anything else will mean that we repeat this whole thing in another few years.
Hezbollah delenda est, Bob.
And I find your naivete with regards to international peacekeepers a little touching, really.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think that it's a mistake to say that "the Lebanese government supports Hezbollah," just as much as it would be a mistake to say that "the Lebanese government is trying to rid the country of Hezbollah." There are factions. Within some of those factions, they certainly do know a LOT more than Israel does about what Hezbollah is up to. That's because they ARE Hezbollah's political arm.
That doesn't mean that the portions of the Lebanese government that want to get rid of Hezbollah are privy to insider info.
Sure, maybe there are networks of informers within the country. But so what? Arrest the leaders and you have a civil war. Close the border to cut off weapons resupply and the armed guys come back behind you and re-open it. Civil war again. Criminy sakes, they just managed to get the Syrian army out of there.
I suspect that as long as Hezbollah wasn't openly killing other Lebanese citizens (at least not those with any power) and were directing their energies elsewhere, the prospect of a civil war would've remained unappealing indefinitely. Now that the presence and actions of Hezbollah are causing deaths among regular folks inside Lebanon, maybe the official attitude toward them will shift. But...that's a lot to count on. And while officially there might be some ascendance of anti-Hezbollah members of the government over this whole episode, there is also not much doubt in my mind that the average Lebanese person is going to come out of this experience pretty darn ticked at Israel too, and cheering every time something bad happens to Israel's citizens.
That is not a good outcome for Israel in the long run. Not if Israel intends to leave any Lebanese people alive. Or Arabs in general.
The sooner the shooting stops, and the sooner the Israeli army goes home, the better for Israel in the long term.
Having a justification for war is not the be-all, end-all of the discussion. Failing to consider the long-term consequences is one reason why we're all in this mess in the Muddle East to begin with.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think international peace keeping forces have a great track record world wide.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I think of the relationship between "blame" and "responsibility" somewhat reverse of what I think you're saying.
With responsibility comes the possibility of blame (for actions, etc.)
If someone blames me, that doesn't mean they are correct, or that I have responsibility.
If I accept blame, however, I must first have accepted responsibility.
Again, it's not a question of "reverse." "Blame" is a distinct concept from responsibility. One is about fault, the other duty. Duty can arise absent fault, and fault can occur which does not generate duty. It's trivial to come up with examples of each.
If I adopt a child, I have committed no moral wrong. I am not "to blame" for anything. Yet, I now have a very serious moral responsibility - one whose failure to perform will lead to blame.
If I heave a brick through someone else's window, I am to blame for the window's breakage; my blame leads to my responsibility to compensate the owner for his loss. Even if the window were not to break, I might be responsible for punitive damages or criminal sanctions.
Similarly, if I am carelessly carrying bricks and one bounces out of my hands, I am to blame for my carelessness, and this blame will lead to my being responsible for compensating the owner for his loss. However, if the brick bounces of the window, my blame is the same, but I have no responsibility to the owner.
The blame in the above example derives from a general responsibility towards the other members of society to act with due care.
I think it's terribly important to appreciate the distinction.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think international peace keeping forces have a great track record world wide.
Not in the middle east, they don't. The UN has been in southern Lebanon. They've helped Hezbollah. They've employeed Hamas terrorists in UNWRA.
And look at the UN's track record of condemning Israel for everything and ignoring Arab atrocities. Forget it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Why not just come out and call me an anti-semite to my face? Don't beat around the bush about it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That paper does not engender sympathy. It is insulting to my intelligence to insinuate that the situations are identical. They are not, and the paper is a cheap shot.
Are you using the situation as an excuse to pick fights with people?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
The situations are not identical. They are, however, similar. And the paper is not a cheap shot, though it is certainly a shot.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why are you shooting Lyrhawn?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Why not just come out and call me an anti-semite to my face? Don't beat around the bush about it.
I don't think you're an anti-semite, Lyrhawn. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you are, you've done a helluva job of hiding it, and I'd as soon believe that OSC is. I do not, have not, and most likely will not, consider you an anti-semite.
I do think that you have a distressing habit of blaming the victim, particularly when it comes to Israel. You have an even more distressing, and perhaps "noxious" would be a better adjective, moral blindness.
You are blind, or at least comport yourself as though you are blind, which is the same thing, so far as I'm concerned, to the evil which is, and has, been perpetrated against Israel by the Arab/Muslim world. And when I say "evil", you'd better believe that I am using it advisedly. I mean it quite literally, and not as a mere device of rhetoric.
The idea that any grievance in the world is a legitimate excuse for the vicious and Nazi-like actions against Israel and Jews is horrible. The fact that you essentially excuse them, while all the while claiming that you don't, comes across as moral cowardice.
"No, of course it's terrible what they're doing, but then, look at what the Israelis have done." That's crap. It's not anti-semitism, Lyrhawn, but it's just as odious.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow.
I cannot fathom a mind that thinks criticizing an army for wrecklessly killing hundreds of civilians in an ill advised attack is the same thing as unreasoned hatred of a race for no reason other than who and what they are. As you so often like to say, that's sick.
When have I ever excused ANY of the Arab nations who attacked Israel in the past? You're taking statements I've made about Israel and Palestine, and some about Lebanon, and trying to apply them to the broader history of the last 50 years. Trouble is, I never said that at all. Perhaps the biggest problem is that you think you have me figured out, and you think I'm trapped into some basic idea that Israel is always wrong, and always has been wrong, about everything. If that isn't what you think, I hope you will correct me, because it's how you come off whenever you target me for your ire and invective.
And while I think you're complaint is valid, that I'm trying too hard to toe a moral balance, I think you are just as messed up for refusing to acknowledge ANY sort of wrong on the part of Israel in its actions towards Palestine or Lebanon. And I don't mean things like "we never should have given them back Gaza." I'm talking about wrongs that have harmed others.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tamper is one of those words that looks more wrong the longer you look at it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I think Israel needs to ignore any such offer and keep going until Hezbollah doesn't exist any more. And frankly, I don't care if that means going to Teheran.
I don't think that it's possible to eliminate Hezbollah with this military action.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Then it's going to go on for a very long time. Because we cannot tolerate Hizbollah's continued existence any more.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Then it's going to go on for a very long time. Because we cannot tolerate Hizbollah's continued existence any more.
Now why does that seem so familiar? Oh, yeah, because the previous invasion was a major cause of Hezbollah forming. So after Hezbollah ceases to exist (hypothetically), you can invade again to battle Hezbollah-prime. Rinse and repeat.
quote: The invasion is popularly held to be the major catalyst for the creation of the Iranian and Syrian supported Hezbollah organization, which replaced the vanquished PLO in Southern Lebanon.
By nature of the sociopolitical realities of the area, attrition and elimination strategies can't work. Hezbollah's size and structure (and backing) is perfectly suited towards the productive application of asymmetrical warfare against a nation-state. They are fluid and guerilla, they hide behind and within civilian population; they turn every reaction by Israel on its ear and feed it into a delightfully hypocritical middle-eastern propaganda mill.
In any scenario, Hezbollah still exists and Lebanon still loses. The only real question for Israel is how they get the attacks to stop.
The people of Israel, in interviews, are demonstrating awareness of the futility of attempting to eliminate Hezbollah. Instead, they're discussing the validity of the gambit against the region: the attacks against Lebanon can be construed as a measure of collective retaliation; a show of force, a heavily-drawn line in the sand.
The idea that I get from their attitudes on the matter is that you have to weaken Hezbollah's opportunity to operate from the region as much as possible. If the retaliation is consistent and measurably destructive, then the collective support of the lebanese people may stop short from letting Hezbollah take potshots into Israel .. since they won't want to get the country torn into shreds again.
Whether it works or not in the short term may have little bearing on the long-term effect. If Hezbollah gets most of its support from places like Syria and Iran, then they can just send the fighters into Lebanon, not caring that they have to sacrifice the region and the people to increase sentiment against Israel (even if the Lebanese may not exactly be consenting to this utilitarian sacrifice). And, of course, civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction translate into woe and misery that bleating spiritual and political leaders can hone into fury against Israel, by calling them murderers and brutes and whatnot. Thus culturing the support and the fighters for the next generation of conflict.
The deck is stacked against Israel (especially in the public relations department) but -- to me -- it looks like Israel essentially has to tolerate their existence. They've no choice, and they just have to react to it to try to eliminate their potential to act against the Israeli people.
It would be nice if it were possible to reduce this conflict into an attrition where it's Israel versus Hezbollah, and they fight until one ceases to be, but that's reliant on the structure of a stand-up fight where both sides fight openly and wear uniforms and all of that yesterday's-wars stuff. As it is, we're talking smoke and mirrors and hearts and minds and terrible mindless endless conflict.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
"As it is, we're talking smoke and mirrors and hearts and minds and terrible mindless endless conflict."
A nice summary, and a good post, Sam.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lisa,
I'm aware of the UNWRA leader's statement on Canadian TV about being sure there were Hamas members on staff and not seeing anything criminal in that. I gather you don't buy their statements UNRWA Setting the Record Straight regarding what they claim are a series of false accusations regarding their organization, misuse of vehicles, etc.
what I haven't seen is anywhere where a person has been named or where a known terrorist has shown up on the UN payroll. Just this weird statement by the (now retired) head of UNRWA.
My question to you is about bombs raining down on Israel from places controlled by international peacekeepers. They've been in some sectors since 1974, right? Are those places quieter than before or not?
It seems to me that occupation by peacekeepers is NEVER welcome by the warring factions, but that it usually has several salutary effects:
- general reduction in major violence to practically zero. - return, or sometimes initial establishment of the rule of law - reopening or establishment of schools - innocent civilians ensured of at least food and shelter, and usually personal safety too
There have been problems and abuses, and it'd be tempting to say "well nothings perfect..." But really, what I'm saying is that peacekeepers, to be considered "good" in the current situation merely have to be better than rockets landing in Israel and missles/bombs/occupation going on in South Lebanon.
From the one perspective I value more than any other that can be named here -- that of preservation of innocent lives -- there is no question in my mind that peacekeepers are a better solution for the immediate future than a continuation of the conflict.
Long term, there are questions that need to be asked.
If, for example, Israel could succeed in wiping out Hezbollah forever from Lebanon, damaging it so badly that it never could rise again, and leaving a vaccuum that could not be filled by any terrorist organization, then there might be a vastly larger long-term benefit of simply staying out of Israel's way.
I don't believe that scenario for a minute. What I believe is more likely is that the terrorists will go to ground when things get too hot, Israel will eventually be pressured into leaving Lebanese soil, and Hezbollah will quickly reassert itself. A respite will have been won, but not much else. In the meantime, because innocents HAVE died in Lebanon, public sentiment is shifted away from peace and toward Hezbollah and any other group that can gain a foothold. So, not only will Israel continue having to fight Hezbollah for the foreseeable future, but it will fight the new enemies it has earned itself by killing people who had nothing to do with this conflict other than being in the general vicinity. Their relatives and their offspring guarantee that Israel will enemies to fight in Lebanon for at least the next generation.
We can go around and around on this, but unless Israel is prepared to pound Lebanon into powder, and then take on the next group that comes along, and the next after that, until finally the region is a wasteland, you simply cannot win the peace this way.
And...long before Israel "wins" that peace, the rest of the Arab world would either sweep down and destroy you, or the country's current supporters would make you stop, or we'll all be dragged into a major global conflict.
There is a better way.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag,
Sorry not to get back to your point sooner. I do indeed see a difference between blame and responsibility. I thought you were saying that blame results in responsibility which would be exactly backwards from what my understanding is. Looking back, I can't find where I got that from. At any rate, your more recent statement made sense to me.
And I also think the distinction between blame and responsibility is very important.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Then it's going to go on for a very long time. Because we cannot tolerate Hizbollah's continued existence any more.
Now why does that seem so familiar? Oh, yeah, because the previous invasion was a major cause of Hezbollah forming. So after Hezbollah ceases to exist (hypothetically), you can invade again to battle Hezbollah-prime. Rinse and repeat.
We've learned from last time. If necessary, as I said, we'll go to Iran.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lisa, what probability do you assign to Israel attacking Iraq?
I'd put it at about 0% over the coming year.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Bob: did you mean Iran?
Also, it looks like Israel is quite willing to work with the UN and Lebanese government. They've agreed to a plan where 15000 UN peacekeepers will oversee a transfer of control in the area from Hezbollah (which has controlled it for quite some time) to the Lebanese military (which Israel has essentially no quarrel with).
Olmert considers the deal to have met all of Israel's demands, though its not under the particular sort of UN mandate they wanted (which would have allowed for UN troops shooting more at Hezbollah, basically).
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yep, I meant Iran. Sheesh. change one letter and it's a whole new country.
Anyway, I will say I'm cautiously optimistic. What exactly ARE the rules of "engagement," should it come to that, between the peacekeepers and Hezbollah?
My big concern is that they'll end up caught in the cross-fire if Hezbollah continues to fire rockets into Israel, will Israel hold their fire because a bunch of blue helmets are in the area? If this force proves unable to stop the rockets from flying, Israel isn't going to have a lot of options that include time for diplomacy to work out a real ceasefire.
Anyway...I look forward to reading what the orders and agreements look like.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
How does Israel GET to Iran anyway? Burn a trail across Syria or Jordan and then hope that they can get across Iraq without any problems, with an INSANELY long supply line, and no forward airbases?
It's impractical to the point of being laughable as a possibility. Israel doesn't invade Iran without help from a bigger player, and the biggest player in the region is the US, and I don't see us giving them a life.
Israel doesn't have the capability to invade Iran, and even if they did, whose to say they'd win? Even getting there would be an amazing feat, and Iran isn't a pushover. They have more manpower available to fight than Israel has citizens total, they have modern weapons, with thousands of combat hardened vets from the Iran-Iraq war 20 years ago.
Airstrikes sure, though I don't know the range of an F-16, but I don't think it can reach Tehran, but invasion is out of the question.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The basic differences is that actions under chapter 6 proceed with mutual consent (by Lebanon and Israel in this case), while actions under chapter 7 proceed at the UN's prerogative (basically).
Lebanon is likely to allow the UN significant military leeway to respond to further attacks by Hizbollah, so the difference may be minor.
One crucial provision is that nothing happens until Hizbollah obeys the cease fire -- Israel can continue prosecuting their attack until then.
There are some extremely strong provisions against Hizbollah in there, too.
quote:security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani River of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area,
'Security arrangements' is code words for 'we get to shoot people who don't comply'.
quote:— full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state,
— no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government,
— no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government,
Meaning, even outside that area we get to aggressively pursue Hezbollah where they bear arms, and Syria and Iran are required to stay the heck away.
Oooh, they even spell out the "and we get to shoot people who don't comply" part later:
quote:12. Acting in support of a request from the government of Lebanon to deploy an international force to assist it to exercise its authority throughout the territory, authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers, and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the government of Lebanon, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence;
A broad mandate for combat like that is unusual in UN resolutions. It can only appear because Hizbollah is persona non grata and both Israel and Lebanon agree in principle on the basics (and now the specifics) of the solution: Lebanon in solid control of the region Hizbollah formerly controlled.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, Israel could not win an invasion of Iran (though its not clear Iran would really 'win' either; they would both lose), unless Israel were to use nuclear weapons (and they wouldn't really be winning an invasion, then, as they wouldn't want or have need of the place).
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Lisa, I apologize for using your handle instead of your name.
My point is just that you can't blame the media for being one way or the other. Maybe, just maybe, they're actually impartially covering events, and not saying who is right or wrong, because that is not their job.
*gasp* Perish the thought.
As far as Israel invading Iran, it's cute that you think Israel makes its own decisions about these things, it really is.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
CNN just reported that the UN has announced agreement for a 5 pm GMT Monday cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.
Good luck all!
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
So, is the picture of the woman in front of this bombed out house on CNN's front page. the same woman in front of the other bombed houses in Lisa's link?
She looks awfully familiar.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: So, is the picture of the woman in front of this bombed out house on CNN's front page. the same woman in front of the other bombed houses in Lisa's link?
She looks awfully familiar.
It looks like she has the same spot under her right eye and scar on her left cheek. I'd say that's her.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I think the picture moved off CNN's front page. Do you know what article it was linked to?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
They changed it. It was the same article on the left, but now there's a different picture - this time with a woman inside a house instead of outside with a shawl.
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
The same thought crossed my mind. She was similar, though I really can't claim it to be the same women. It was rather grainy
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kasie H: My point is just that you can't blame the media for being one way or the other. Maybe, just maybe, they're actually impartially covering events, and not saying who is right or wrong, because that is not their job.
*gasp* Perish the thought.
What is your take on the article that Lisa posted, Kasie? It seems like the photography fraud is far from impartial, and not accurately covering events. What job are they doing-just trying to sell papers at the expense of the facts?
Edit: Wrong name
[ August 14, 2006, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: BaoQingTian ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
You know you can actually delete the post, and not just the text in the post. When you go to edit, there's a checkbox that'll let you do it.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
I think this is really facinating: Satellite image of Lebanon. The river in the middle divides Israel and Lebanon I think. If you zoom in, it looks even more interesting. If you hold the arrow keys it will scroll, like a video game... Maybe you can see Hezbollah rocket launchers? I wonder if new images will eventually go up showing all the damage.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
He's a little out of date, and isn't in Lebanon itself, but it's still fascinating reading.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm not sure I understand his motivation. Does he say somewhere that he wants to be a journalist when he grows up, or is he just thrill-seeking, or what?
Traveling to the front line of a war in order to post information in a blog and podcasts seems more than a little odd to me.
Also, I assume you mean independent as in not-affiliated with any recognized news organization, as opposed to "unbiased."
His supposed insights into "the Arab mentality" made me cringe, frankly. I liked the report overall, but if he was talking about Hezbollah, why get sloppy and generalize to all Arabs? Now...it may be that he was quoting the military spokesperson (or rather, paraphrasing since things were not in quotes), but that just brings up another problem. If the reader can't tell which part of the opinion is coming from the reporter and which part from the source, things can get very confusing. That bit about "the Arab bar for victory is pathetically low" is a case in point. I couldn't really tell if that was a sentiment expressed by the official military spokesperson or if Mr. Totten was trying to educate me on the realities of fighting against Hezbollah, or if he meant that to apply to all Arab armies, or to all Arabs everywhere.
It's a small detail in an otherwise good (but not great) report, but it was particularly glaring because he embedded the comment between two paragraphs of actual quotations from that spokesperson.
[ August 15, 2006, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
He's actually been living in Beirut for 6 of the last 8 or 9 months. He considers it his 2nd home. And he's trying to make this his living now, apprently -- freelance reporter. He has his own personal biases, of course, but he's not beholden to any news agency and has no agenda except his own, which is to go and to see as best he can tell what's truly going on.
He's got some reports from Iraqi Kurdistan as well, if you look in his archives. He was in Israel earlier this year too, as he was moving from Lebanon back to the states and his reports on the state of tension at the border was quite prescient. He also visited the border from the northern side with a Hezbollah "handler" several months back too.
I don't know that he has all the access a "full-blown" reporter for the AP or Reuters might have, but I find that I enjoy his "man on the street" style and how he seems to get the story from the "regular guy" as well as the spokesmen's "official story."
Do yourself a fvor and browse his archives. His trip to Libya a couple of years ago was a great story too -- and excellent photos too. The Roman ruins were amazing, as well as the "covered city."
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
While there are some great freelance reporters out there, very often working for a news organization ensures accuracy and credibility, not the other way around.
If an independent photographer had taken those pictures, who would have announced that they were fake and then publicly fired him? Who would have made sure the public was aware of the falsehoods?
Who would have held him accountable?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Bloggers? Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
What Bao said, bloggers. You would be suprised just how many people blog about the news and spend all their time trying to keep news sources honest. The information in Lisa's post is basically a huge blog post based on the work of other bloggers.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
You would be surprised how few people actually read blogs.
Granted, it's probably about the same number of people who read a self-published freelancer, so I bet it all comes out in the wash.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kasie H: You would be surprised how few people actually read blogs.
Granted, it's probably about the same number of people who read a self-published freelancer, so I bet it all comes out in the wash.
I'm a corporate blogger, so I did quite a bit of research about blogging communities, ALOT of people subscribe and read blogs. You are right many people such as myself, do not seek out blogs to read, but blogging and blog subscribing is fast growing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Few people read any given blog. A good deal more people read some blog or another regularly. Even more people read some blog story or another regularly. Even more people read some blog story or another occasionally.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Few people read any given blog. A good deal more people read some blog or another regularly. Even more people read some blog story or another regularly. Even more people read some blog story or another occasionally.
You are correct, though the # of people in each category is increasing IMO.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
[ominous voice] Yes....but who blogs the bloggers? [/ominous voice]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kasie H: You would be surprised how few people actually read blogs.
Granted, it's probably about the same number of people who read a self-published freelancer, so I bet it all comes out in the wash.
See, but bloggers do. The big bloggers, who get attention from the MSM read the smaller bloggers, who read the smaller bloggers.
Big bloggers have little bloggers Upon their backs to ride 'em And little bloggers have littler bloggers And so ad infinitum.
(With apologies to Ogden Nash)
(Edit: more apologies still. According to Wikipedia, the original is really by Augustus de Morgan:
quote:"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so on ad infinitum. And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on, While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Right. I should know better than to say bad things about bloggers to people who read blogs and distrust the MSM. Even though millions of people still watch the 6:30 pm evening news.
As far as corporate blogging goes, BlackBlade, I'm legitimately curious - who is your target audience? I know we had an internal blog when I worked at USA Today (really just another euphemism for 'interactive company newsletter', but whatev), but it didn't have its own specific writer. Is your blog targeted at the company's customers or its employees?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
All kinds of non-military options were available to them.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I often have to make a conscious effort to try to keep my views and circumstances (e.g. in this case, I have relatives in Lebanon) from colouring my take on the news too much. It's something that I try to keep in mind, and try to compensate for as best I can, but it's easy to forget. I found this part particularly interesting:![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)