Justin you can't expect raising the moral level of our leaders.. cyrano

thanks for the reply,

 

That initial remark came out somewhat bolder than i intended it too. It's just that i do see a pattern of condeming the oppressed because their not ghandi in a lot of progressive circles, and I didn't want to think that you were jumping on to that band wagon. I think 'liberals' who think like that do more harm than right-wingers, I wish that view was more explicitly articulated in circles like these instead of brushed under the rug whenever possible.

 

Masoud 

If you listen to CNN, arabs are irational people, they plant bomb just to plant bombs, that what they do, its part of their culture putting bomb here and there..! Now if there were a TV sation that deserve to be sued for promoting hate it should be CNN.

HI Anon. I am certainly not working from a "they are terrorists after all" assumption. I was questioning the claim in the blog post for two reasons. First, the requirement to be skeptical of any pronouncements by any leaders, applying the same skepticism across the board. My second reason was rhetorical. I think Hizbollah's patterns of action do suggest that they would cease the rocket fire if Israel stopped its bombing, that's why I said Hizbullah was offering a way back to the Geneva Convention. I really think that's true. Unfortunately, our leaders are too racist and bloodthirsty - "cold-blooded killers", to use the Canadian Foreign Minister's phrase - to follow Hizbullah there.

Anonymous, read the reports, Israel bombed the airport and the TV station, it is bombing bridges, roads etc. Its the third time israeli bomb the airport and its multiple invasion of lebanon is creating so much damages, it is pure barbarism.. and this wit pure impunity. The current condition of palestinian is a human disaster. the vey treatment imposed on palestinians by israel does put in question its right to exist, at least in its current form. It is also using sophisticated bombs made with depleted uranium.

Justin wrote: Now I know you'll say that Nasrallah is insincere. But how could that be known if his offer is never taken up? If he is insincere and we stop slaughtering civilians and they keep firing rockets, will something have been lost? Israel said it would stop the war if the kidnapped soldiers are released right from the start. Now I know you'll say the Israeli are insincere. But how would that be known if the offer is never taken up? If Israel is insincere that the bombs keep droping and the soldiers are returned , will something have been lost? Why are the Hezbollah refusing to do something so simple for so long if they are genuinely concerned about civilian deaths instead of using them for PR offensive?

Fascinating that Mr Podur reads Nasrallah's speech as indicative of a higher moral level than that of Western leaders, and "a way back to the Geneva Conventions". Nasrallah's Hezbollah intentionally TARGETS civilians. The warheads on Hezbollah rockets are packed with ball bearings (as are the bombs of Hamas and Islamic Jihad suicide bombers) for the sole purpose of killing as many civilians as possible. (85% of injuries and deaths of Israeli civilians, including the dozen Israeli Arabs killed and hundreds wounded thus far, are caused by these ball bearings.) The exclusive point of the launching of these missiles is to kill civilians. At the same time Nasrallah repeatedly boasts (as in the same speech from which your excerpt was drawn) that Hezbollah is not a classic army. In other words, it ensconces its military arsenal, which we now know is at the highest level of sophistication, embedded among the civilian population and institutions: hospitals, schools, densely populated residential neighbourhoods. All these constitute grave breaches of several Geneva articles (35, 37, and especially 48), while what the "Western" targeting of military objectives that lead to collateral deaths as a result of those targets having been placed (by Hezbollah) in proximity of civilian population or disguised or hidden in civilian areas (defined as "perfidy" and explicitly outlawed by Article 37, subsections c and d) is at worst ambiguous in relation to Conventions 35.2 ("It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering") and 51. 51.2 says "The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." Clearly an aerial bombardment aimed at destroying a Katyusha launcher which itself had been targeting civilians is not in breach of this article. Subsection 4 then goes on to prohibit "indiscriminate attacks" which include (4c) "Those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. " But the crucial fleshing out of this principle in 5b states: "An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. " Everything here turns on the definition and application of the key term "excessive". Many might agree that the Israeli bombardments constitute excessive loss of civilian life and injury to civilians "in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated". The inference to this conclusion is blurred, however, by the fact that the targets of these bombardments are not just military objectives but military objectives that are unambiguously in grave breach of these very conventions: rocket launchers aimed deliberately at civilian targets with warheads designed to cause maximum damage to civilians. When Znet commentators such as Justin Podur exude their wrath exclusively in the direction of the party that was first aggressed at the beginning of the conflict, or (in his case) more perversely claim that Hezbollah practices are on a higher moral plane than "western" (read Israeli and American) armies, then readers are permitted to speculate about what their real motives are. However excessive the Israeli response has been, everyone knows that Israel makes no territorial claims on Lebanon (while Hezbollah and its Iranian sponsors reject the right of Israel to exist) and that Hezbollah could end hostilities immediately by returning the kidnapped soldiers and disarming in conformity with U.N. resolutions and the wishes of the majority of Lebanese.

What are your grounds for questioning hezbollah's claim that it would cease the rocket fire? Experience suggests that they are very open about their policies.

Do they have a history of histerical behavior or are there some claims they have made that they haven't followed through on in the past which aren't publicly known or are you just working from a 'well they are terrorists after all' assumption?