I just had an interesting conversation with my roommate. He had read my post about human shields. We moved beyond the "Is it true?" (in which he said that there was a rocket launched from right near that building in Qana and that's what they hit, the building fell because it was too close), and on to, "Say it is true. Then who has the lesser moral ground, those who use human shields or those who shoot at them anyway?" This was the basic argument:
Him: "I believe that Israel has the right to defend itself if bombs are landing in their country."
Me: "OK. Me too."
Him: "But if you say that they can't attack areas where the bombs are coming from because there are civilians there being used as human shields, then you're essentially saying that they can't defend themselves, because all of the bombs are coming from civilian areas. So what are they supposed to do?"
OK, I have to confess he had me beat. (I think he tried to post a comment but it didn't post.) I need to think on that some more, but I felt a certain moral obligation to tell My Dear Readers that I have in fact been (temporarily) logically bested and that I may not have thought this through enough.
There, I feel better.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
OK, Smarty Girl, What is Israel Supposed to Do?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
With regards to human shields, I see a double standard here. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Firstly, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Secondly, if a terrorist has a base near a civilian population, then they are automatically accused of using the civilians as human shields.
In my travels throughout the United States, England, and Europe, I saw many military bases right next to and within populated areas. I would presume that Israel has bases close to civilian populations as well. The two largest naval and air force bases in the United States; at Norfolk Virginia, and San Diego California, are smack dab in the middle of very large civilian populations. Would it not be reasonable to label these populations as human shields as well? Any strikes on these bases are sure to cause collateral damage.
I do not, and cannot justify collateral damage in war. It breaks my heart and infuriates me to see the broken bodies of the innocents. As I stated in my post: Who's Life is it Anyway? in my Birdwalking blog, the term collateral damage is the military’s method of sanitizing civilian death, and used to desensitize the population against the atrocity of civilian casualties in war.
No matter how odious Hezbollah is; their history as a terrorist organization is irrefutable, I wonder if they intentionally set up their operations near civilian populations with the intention of using them as 'human shields'. I will not defend Hezbollah’s launching of rockets at Israeli cities, as I do not condone Israel bombing cities in Lebanon. Both sides are guilty of war atrocities.
In my opinion, I do not foresee a cease-fire in this sanctioned war anytime soon. In my opinion, this is a proxy war. This is payback time for the 1993 Hezbollah suicide bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut. Israel overreacted to the kidnapping of two soldiers. Israel has been staging incursions across the Lebanese border almost on a daily basis, capturing and imprisoning Hezbollah fighters since they pulled out of the country in 1998.
In my opinion, both sides are equally wrong in this war.
First, Caribou, thanks for the advice! Let's see if it works.
Second, my answer to you was getting so long, I thought I'd write today's post on it, so check it out (um, when I finish it).
Post a Comment