(no subject)
it is REALLY hot!! I mean i don't know if i can take this anymore. I might as well move to California (the northern part)
If this really is global warming then we are screwed.
I saw this in Sojourners magazine regarding the Israel-Lebanon war a couple of weeks ago and I feel like it raised some interesting points:
********************************************************************************************************************************************
But Israel's use of military attacks in response to acts of terror raises many questions. The most important, perhaps, revolves around the issue of legitimate self defense vs. collective punishment. Israel is indeed surrounded by sworn enemies, including many who are demonstrably willing to violently destroy Israel. But does the real need for security justify the massively disproportionate response to an act of terror? Is the collective punishment of an entire population ever morally and ethically justified? As Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Vatican Secretary of State, put it in statement July 14, "The Holy See condemns both the terrorist attacks on the one side and the military reprisals on the other," stating that Israel's right to self-defense "does not exempt it from respecting the norms of international law, especially as regards the protection of civilian populations." The statement said further, "In particular, the Holy See deplores the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation."
Even apart from the ethical questions raised by Israel's massive retaliation, there are significant issues of efficacy: Does it work? Is Israel made more secure by a militarized approach? Israel has destroyed 42 bridges in Lebanon this week, along with 38 roads, communications equipment, factories, runways and fuel depots at the Beirut airport, and the main ports of Beirut and Tripoli. And along with the material devastation, the attacks constitute a terrible, possibly even fatal, threat to Lebanon's fragile and fledgling democracy.
Does the destruction of much of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, so painstakingly rebuilt after years of civil war and occupation by both Israeli and Syrian forces, bode well for future peace between the neighboring states? In sum, will the Israeli attacks bring long-term security for Israel, or will they further ensure that the next generation of Lebanese and Palestinians - across the theological and political spectrum - grow up with an undying hatred in their hearts?
********************************************************************************************************************************************
How does someone decide these things? I can't help but see a tiny reflection in Israel of the U.S. We were attacked on our own land to an extent that most countries would warrant a strong response. The attack made on our country that day was a message that the attack would happen again and again in spite of who we are.
Where does a country draw the line though? Obviously Israel and Palestine have been fighting for years to figure this out. What can we define as "terrorism"? The article describes Israel's attacks as terrorism, but the U.S. would be very hesitant to say so. We call it "defense". At what point do we stop defending ourselves and start brutally attacking the other side?
How exactly does any kind of fighting warrant peace? Don't get me wrong, I'm actually not anti-war, but I think motives have a very powerful position in these matters. It's blatantly clear that some countries HATE each other. Though Lebanon clearly has a very vulnerable economy, Israel does not hesitate in attacking full force. There is no real mission except to ultimately humiliate and destroy their enemy. Lebanon would do exactly the same thing if the country was better prepared for war.
Is this really the military example that the US is setting for the the rest of the world right now? I sure don't see our war in Iraq as anything close to comparable, but Israel has a close and guided relationship with the United States that makes this war look sketchy. I believe one of our biggest policy failures has come with the bias the US holds with Israel. It is one thing to support a country that is making social and economical advances (i.e. India), but it is a completely different thing to get involved in a mess between countries that has literally taken place since the beginning of developing countries.
Maybe Israel's solution to the fighting is to finally destroy the opposition. That sure does seem to work with the U.S. We want to destroy "terrorism", but at this point what does that really mean? I believe that democracy can work and will be better for the world than worse, but we can't force people into democracy. They have to choose it. We can't end violence with violence. I just don't understand the logic. Eventually someone's got to stop throwing rocks. There needs to be a cease-fire in the middle east. I agree with Bush that it needs to be permanent, but we also have to show them that we are serious about peace. Right now I don't know how well we are doing that by giving Israel further encouragement to "defend" themselves.