Does a right to defend yourself mean invading someone else?

Post Reply New Topic

Whenever I hear about what is happening in the middle east with Israel now invading Lebanon, it just annoys and just feels like rather than finding a way to cease the fighting, it just wants to escalate things even more.

This sounds like a controversial topic but I don't really support either side, both sides seem as bad as one another in what is going on. It saddens me really that it's a conflict that has been raging since 1948, could you imagine if partition fighting between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh was still going on ?

It also angers me when we see that Israel is occupying certain areas of land which we know is illegal and it's as though we ignore that still support them while countries condemn them whereas in the past, when there were other countries invading and illegally occupying another we condemned them but not what Israel does and rather than addressing that the occupation is a problem which probably kicks off the fighting in the first place, for years it carries on doing what it does. I seem to feel from what I understand that had Yitzhak Rabin not been assassinated maybe things would be different, I really don't know.

Firstly, important to remember this is a complex topic. Both Israel and Lebanon are complex societies containing groups with conflicting desires, as well as long histories. There is a lot I do not know, and more that I don't understand fully, or even don't know that I don't know. It's important that I start by being intellectually humble and I hope others will too, within reason.

To simplify dramatically, and I know people will know most of this but hopefully the way I say it will give some insight into my overall position, Lebanon is a multiethnic, multireligious democracy. The Shia minority (all groups in Lebanon are minorities) largely but not entirely support Hezbollah, a paramilitary organisation that is considered a terrorist group by Israel and by most Western nations, and which has a political wing which takes part in the Lebanese government. Hezbollah has more military strength than the government in Beirut, and are the de facto government of much of southern Lebanon (which is majority Shia).

In the 60s and 70s, Palestinian militias, consisting largely of refugees who had been displaced from modern-day Israel to Lebanon, launched attacks against both Israel and the then-government of Lebanon, which was dominated by Lebanese Christians, from their base in Southern Lebanon. This sparked a long and bloody civil war in Lebanon, and Israel twice invaded Southern Lebanon in order to protect their borders, with the second invasion causing the formation of Hezbollah. Many Lebanese still resent the role that Israel played in those conflicts, but they also hate Hezbollah.

Following Israel's invasion of Gaza after the bloody terrorist attacks last October, Hezbollah, which is allied with Hamas, began to launch rocket and artillery attacks on Israel. Homes near the border had to be evacuated. Israel responded with massive force, firing about ten times as much artillery back at Hezbollah and causing about ten times as many civilian deaths.

Israel says that it needs to permanently remove Hezbollah's ability to launch attacks against Israel. In this sense, they are indeed acting in self-defence. The Lebanese government is unable to fight Hezbollah and has withdrawn from the border region. While Israel does have expansionist aims (it has a habit of referring to Southern Lebanon as "Galilee"), it should also be noted that they unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 which directly led to Hezbollah's takeover of the south, and at present they don't have the capacity to manage two simultaneous full-blown invasions. Their current actions in Lebanon seem extremely constrained, not out of mercy but simply because they don't have the military capability to take on both Hamas and Hezbollah at once.

That said, while I think Israel is justified in fighting Hezbollah, I do think some of their actions have been disproportionate and warrant criticism. Far too many Lebanese civilians have been killed. Not only is it a moral failling, but it is probably also a strategic one that will turn Northern Lebanese (who hate Hezbollah) against Israel, or solidify the negative feelings they might already have.

I do agree that it's a mighty shame that the conflict in the area still hasn't been solved after over 75 years. It isn't simple. On a basic level, Israel is right that having other countries nearby is a security risk - but it's not a security risk that you can solve through bombing and occupation, but through diplomacy and compromise. That said, it's much harder than any glib slogan could make out.

It's important to understand history before condemning Israel. the formation of the state of Israel was basically enabled by the then British protectorate in the middle east, without the British colonial empire and support of the United States the state of Israel could not have formed. the very act of creating this country in 1948 in what was prior an Arab/muslim nation drew hostility from Israel's neighbors who declared war on the fledgling state. Over several decades the Israeli people were subject to internal terrorism from the PLO and regular invasion from Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan.

the formation of Israel did not take into consideration the needs of the Palestinian Arab people in the region but what was done was done and Jewish people living in their home (yes Israel is their home) have a right to defend themselves against hostility.

But there are definitely lines Israel should not cross. Did Israel have a right to invade Gaza? the more sensible thing would be to try and negotiate return of hostages, but the IDF knew HAMAS would taunt Israel with livestreaming executions (which they have done). Israel now have a decision to not bomb Iranian nuclear sites. Biden has warned Netanyahu. But Iran knew what they were doing when they bombed Israel. I am hoping they do not risk the region with nuclear fallout but it's now a wait and see situation.

Although the concept of creating a Jewish state after the horrors of the Holocaust, which many Jews were unable to escape because they didn't have a country to flee to, was admirable, it was done in a wrongheaded way that was doomed from the start. The state of Israel was imposed on the local population by Western powers and from the start the Palestinians were displaced and persecuted, and it has gone on since, with Israel aggressively pursuing more and more territory and punishing the Palestinian people for just existing. It's a new horror that should not be allowed to stand, and it wouldn't if Israel didn't have the support of the US, which makes us responsible for the horrific actions taken by the state of Israel over the last eight decades.

^^^ Agreed

If someone shoots at my house from theirs, I have the "right" to shoot back at their house from mine in self-defense.

(The cops and courts may not see it that way, but there it is.)

The alternative would be to call those same cops and hope they put down their donuts long enough to answer the phone.
 

Marking 1 year anniversary of October 7th
Australian journalist Erin Molan has made a viral comment
https://www.jpost.com/international/article-822393

She's been sent death threats to her and her 7yr old daughter

"I know without any doubt in my mind who I'm rooting for, and it's not the terrorists who celebrate death.  It's the country that celebrates life." -- Erin Molan

Words to live by.

L'Chaim!

There's no real justification for Israel's violence, the colonial state's presence is a primary factor in why the region is stuck in perpetual cycles of violence.

It's almost like creating colonies on land that's already owned and occupied inevitably forces a reaction from those being preyed upon by the colonizers. There's no right to steal what isn't yours and you can't create Israel without stealing from Palestine. Even if you're triumphant and "celebrate life" while you're stealing, you're still the antagonist and those who support your cause are openly admitting they're fine with supporting thieves and murderers.

I think this is a gross simplification on multiple grounds, not least that it's disconnected from Israel's invasion of Lebanon which seems to be the topic at hand.

Moreover:

- the idea that land "belongs" to people on the basis of their ethnicity is fundamentally a racist one. The Israelis have just as much right to live there as the Palestinians do.

- while around 700,000 Palestinians were displaced in the Nakba, and that was an unnecessary humanitarian disaster, it's equally important to remember that large parts of Israel were not inhabited by Arabs. For instance, the cities of Rishon LeZion and Petah Tikva were founded by Jews during the mandatory period, and are now the fourth and fifth largest cities in the greater Israel-Palestine area, with populations a little over 250,000. When we talk about Jerusalem and Haifa, and other cities like Netanya, then we can justifiably talk about ethnic cleansing, but you can't say that about Bnei Brak. (Tel Aviv is more complicated, initially founded on empty land near Jaffa, but rapidly expanding, with most of the inhabitants of Jaffa being displaced in 1948)

- the existence of Israel is a fait accompli. At this point, the only way to get rid of it would be to ethnically cleanse nearly 10 million people. This seems undesirable.

It's only Israel that claims that the land belongs to it on the basis of ethnicity. The Palestinians claim the land belongs to them simply because it is where they were living.

I accept that Israel's existence is fait accompli, the problem is that they seem unwilling to recognize the costs that it's founding inflicted upon the people who were murdered or displaced as a result of it's creation.

Israel occupies far more territory than can be considered fair, even if it only controlled the 1948 borders. They weren't a fair proposal and it wasn't wrong to reject them. That said, it's unlikely that Israel will return any land, except possibly some of Area C. If that's their stance, they need to compensate their victims by other means, like cash. They could probably afford to cut a check that would ultimately be less than their defence budget over a few generations.

This could be compared say to how Canada was largely formed through treaties with the locals, Israel was formed through terrorism, massacre and force of arms. There's a significant difference in terms of legitimacy of the claims that result. I say this largely to rebut certain posters repeated and ignorant attempts to use my nationality in order to delegitimize my stance towards Israel.

It's fair to say Israel owes compensation to the victims of it's foundation but instead persists in terrorizing them.
Likewise, the Arab states that displaced their own Jews in response to the Nakba owe compensation to their victims.

As for Israelis right to be there, they might well have that right but that doesn't inherently mean they have the right to live in the nation of Israel. If they're living on Palestinian land they might need to accept Palestinian citizenship and Palestinians might need to accept that Jews can be Palestinian citizens.

No, that's a simplification, which ignores the fact that for most Israelis, Israel is the only home they have ever known, and most Palestinians have never called Israel home.

The colonialist ambitions of Hamas are based on nothing but ethnicity and deserve to be rejected just as strongly as Israel's own colonialist ambitions. There is some fair debate to be had over the West Bank settlements and East Jerusalem, which will need compromises likely to be painful to both sides (and which seem vanishingly unlikely at present), but Tel Aviv is Israeli and Ramallah is Palestinian, there's no getting away from that without ethnic cleansing.

I bunked with a Palestinian dude back in the early 1990s when I was living in Malaysia. He told me a few things that indicated his people are intergenerationally brainwashed. I'll give him credit he was a nice, friendly guy. But his entire life revolved around convincing non-Arab people that Jews were evil. He was the one who told me what the saying from the river to the sea meant. He and other Palestinians wanted to see no Jews living in Palestine (i.e. Israel) and he thought it was feasible that western governments could give money to Jews to migrate back to Europe or the US peacefully and give back the 1948 Palestinian lands. He was very very moderate.

He had connections to the Arab Palestinian expatriate community who held functions in Malaysia inviting other expatriate Arabs and I attended a couple. In Arabic they would sing songs celebrating Palestine and death to Israel. I did try to reason with him and his friends and (again emphasising they were English literate, friendly normal university educated folk). they all thought if they could defeat the IDF militarily they could force Israel to collapse and for Jews to leave and seek asylum overseas. As I said if educated moderate Palestinians believed this, its no wonder PLO and HAMAS have brainwashed common folk to launch attacks like the one on Oct 7.

Others have tried, none have succeeded.

No, that's not the only way to get rid of it. Another way would be to replace Israel/Palestine with a single bi-national state with constitutional protections for all.

See the following threads in which this idea is discussed:

- Palestine/Israel: 2-state solution vs. 1 binational state?
- Israel/Palestine -- how could a one-state solution work?