For what it is worth, I'm going to layout in so far as I am capable my thoughts on the current conflict. I do stand by my statement that the situation is complex, it certainly isn't "simple" IMO, probably somewhere in between. In other threads on the board I've been challenged to "add something to the discussion." Since I'm the newest member and nobody really knows me. This is my effort to integrate myself a little deeper into the established membership.

I might take some of heat for this because I'm not discussing how to end the conflict. But since others have advised me that without a clearer understanding of the past a peace cannot be reached. I do not attempt to deal with history in this post as it would take pages so I've limited myself to the current conflict. And so this is my opinion, and I could be wrong. But as I see it;

The United Nations charter prohibits the use of force in the settlement of disputes between nations, with two exceptions. Force is legally permissible when the United Nations Security Council has authorized it through a mandatory resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter. Force is also legally permissible in "self defense." The UN Charter does not define self defense so international lawyers turn to customary international law, which has produced a substantial body of writing on the subject.

Self defense between nations as a legal concept arose during the 19th century (Daniel Webster was instrumental in the creation of the doctrine). The Caroline incident makes for a fascinating story in itself, but I'll skip the burning steamship going over Niagra falls and get straight to the boring legalities, which boil down to necessity and proportionality:

1) The use of force must be necessary to remove the threat. That means that lesser options like warnings, etc. must be insufficient.

2) The use of force must be proportional to the threat. If a half dozen commandos sneak across the border you can chase them down with forces of your own, but you can't nuke the opposition.

There have been refinements and accretions over the years. Many decades ago, it was determined that the use of force in reprisals is illegal. The US invasion of Afghanistan was conducted on self defense grounds, even though the government of Afghanistan itself was arguably innocent of involvement in the various September 11 attacks. The rescue of hostages held in a foreign country is generally legal, as is the evacuation of foreign noncombatants from a war zone. It's also permissible to help another country defend itself, even if the helping country hasn't been attacked (this is known as collective self defense). Finally, force is legal if a host country grants permission.

Israel's response to attacks on its territory by Hamas and Hezbollah present a difficult case study. I'll start with Gaza (and ignore questions of Palestinian sovereignty, treating Gaza as part of a bona fide nation state because that's by far the majority position).

Taken in isolation, the kidnapping and murder of a handful of soldiers is indeed sufficient to merit a forceable response in self defense. Certainly a commando raid to try to rescue their trapped soldiers would be allowed. So would an attack on any identifiable Hamas units that might be poised to launch another such sneak attack. However, a large scale offensive (as has been conducted) seems out of proportion to the level of threat involved. But of course, Hezbollah/Hamas hasn't limited themselves to simply that one operation - they've launched a large number of rockets at civilian targets. Given that ongoing and continuous pattern of attacks, Israel would be justified in a much higher level of force. Pretty much any sort of search and destroy operation to take down the rocket teams themselves is allowed. Likewise, trying to cut supply lines to the teams. None of this deals with the requirements of the Laws of Land Warfare to mitigate harm to civilians, of course.

Israel's seizure of high level Hamas leaders, however, does not appear to be necessary to achieve the cessation of rocket attacks or the rescue of their soldier. Likewise, attacks on power stations, water supplies and so forth have no place in national self defense of this sort.

Lebannon is a different case study. Air strikes against bridges and airports may be necessary (tactically and therefore legally) to prevent the movement of their soldiers from beyond help of rescue. However, these attacks are NOT proportional to the harm inflicted by Israel's air attacks. Israel would do better to make efforts to mitigate the civilian losses caused by these measures - for example psychological operations to convince civilians to evacuate the affected area. Attacking non-Hezbollah targets in Lebannon would be legitimate under the same rationale as attacking Taliban targets to get at al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

In a real sense, this is a completely academic discussion. You can't be put in "international jail" and no one can compel Israel to defend its actions in court. However, that doesn't mean that international law is without important consequences! Other nations shape their reactions based on the conduct of the nations that are parties to a conflict. Europe, especially, is sensitive to concerns of international law. Various middle eastern nations with a stake in seeing Israel suffer can use this "violation" as a propaganda tool and to justify sending assistance to their side. Of course, Israel may have concluded that Europe and the Middle East will view any armed response by Israel as immoral, vicious and wrong (not far from my assessment, actually), and also that Europe and the Middle East will not do a damned thing in response to violations by Hamas, Hezbollah, Lebannon, Syria or Iran (completely true).

So, to sum up:

1) State sponsors of terrorism are legitimate targets, with or without UN approval.
2) Nevertheless, military operations must be necessary (to stop the threat) and proportional (to the threat).
3) Not all of Israel's operations have met this dual standard. However, the ramifications of those violations are (in this instance) minor at best.
4) The U.S. would be justified in sending our forces to Mexico to rescue 40 hostages - or 1 hostage. However, we'd have to be quite careful in how much damage we inflicted along the way.
5) As for the U.S. as a state sponsor of Israel, no doubt it looks that way. However, Israel's actions are acts of war rather than terrorism. I can't give you a precise definition explaining why because no one has a precise definition of terrorism.
6) Nevertheless, terrorist organizations will use these latest attacks to recruit individuals to attack Americans and America based on our "sponsorship."

And, the cycle continues. In my opinion, not enough people are discussing how to end the conflict. The UN is inept and neither Israel, Hezbollah or Hamas gives a tinkers damn what they say. All sides will refer to UN resolutions endlessy when it supports thier position otherwise, the UN is really a non-player. It will take nothing less than an intense US lobbying effort to curb Israel's current military operations and nothing short of Iran and Syria to a lesssor degree to curb the operations of Hezbollah/Hamas, which they are loath to do. And so it seems, this drama will play itself out on the world stage and we'll just have to watch the chips fall where they may.

Im a bit confused. Are the countries Israel blowing up ACTUALLY sponsors of terrorists? Is this a fact? If not, then is it much different than our war? I cant justify a country invading another unless that state is involved with the terrorism.

I was merely stating that that is a legitimate use of force, its a statement of fact, not an opinion. Since you asked, my "opinion", is that Israel's military attacks are disproportionate to the threat, and no, the Lebanese government is not to my knowledge a state sponsor of terrorism.

So if the lebanese is not a state sponsor, then how is it a legitimate use of force?

Exactly.

Lebanon has not supported Hezbola.

So why kill innocent Lebanese citizens, disproportionately so at that.

Your point is valid if you contend that the Lebanese Govt. had absolute control over the factions within it's borders. But, they dont. For what it is worth, it is the other way around. State sponsored in this case is actually State condoned. Possibly by merely not being able to control these factions.

Israel views it as black or white....there is very little gray to them. It came from within Lebanon therefore, it was Lebanon. Add to this the fact that Israel is like a little white kid growing up in Harlem. They either have to run fast or demonstrate absolute resolve when they fight. They can't run,...so they fight.

Was it justified? In their eyes, certainly. Was it too much? Probably. Israel is not a country to trifle with. They take their country, their heritage, their religious beliefs, and their independence VERY seriously. Much like we do however, they have been at it for thousands of years. As well, the hatred between Muslims and the Jewish nation dates back thousands of years as well. This wasnt JUST about 2 soldiers being kidnapped. Its hard to sit on the sidelines and say...."was it justified"? I don't know, Im not an Israeli. They have blood on the table and if you ask one, they feel absolutely justified.

Now im curious, if the KKK went around commiting acts of terrorism in other countries, would an attack on the us then be justified? We really cant control what our people do in other countries and i wonder how quick we would be to react to them here within our own borders if they had commited no crime.

An attack on the KKK would be legitimate. Not an attack upon the US, though the attack would be with in the US.
However, most Americans would not tollerate such actions, even though pretty much insist on such things for others.


If the KKK had a history of bombing buildings within Mexico and as a result, civilians were regularly killed,
and if the US failed to do anything to stop these actions, and as such then condoned these actions, then few in the world would condemn Mexico for taking action against the KKK.

Would you?

Yes. No country has a right to invade the borders of another unless that government is directly involved in the attack.

If you guys want to read a good book on related topics, take a look at Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Walzer. You might also want to have a look at the article, "Terrorism and War" by Virginia Held.

I think an important distinction we need to make is between jus ad bellum, just reasons for going TO war, and jus in bello, just conduct IN war.

There are a variety of reasons for going to war, but let's just take 3 particular cases:
1. A war of aggression (which is illegal under all standards of international law and immoral besides).
2. A war of self-defense, in which the defender must respond proportionally to the attacks of the aggressor and uphold the rules of lawful conduct in pursuing the war (legal in international law).
3. A war of law enforcement, involving retributive violence against particular entities, often non-national (a fuzzy case in international law).

I'll hold, for purposes of my argument, that wars of law enforcement are justified, given that war is a last resort, and that the parties involved must respond proportionally, with regard for civilian life (perhaps even more so than in a war of self-defense), and uphold rules of jus in bello. I'll start with a list of examples, which might help frame the discussion.

Take the First Gulf War of 1991 for example. Iraq engaged in illegal aggression against its neighbor, Kuwait. Kuwait therefore becomes justified in engaging in a war of self-defense and in petitioning its allies for military assistance. The international community also thereupon becomes justified in a two-pronged war against Iraq; a war of self-defense on behalf of Kuwait, and a war of law enforcement to punish Iraq's infraction on international law. That is a rough sketch of the status of jus ad bellum as it applies to that conflict. The jus in bello is another matter--both Iraq and the allies may have been guilty of various war crimes as they pertained to that conflict, but that is a debate for another time.

Let's next consider the response of the United States against Afghanistan post-9/11. Afghanistan is known to both sponsor and harbor terrorists in the al Qaeda network, and the government refuses to turn over al Qaeda to the US or to allow the US and the international community to engage in law enforcement against al Qaeda directly. I do not want to get sidetracked by condemning or defending the actions of the United States as it pertains to jus ad bellum in this conflict, nor by the specifics of jus in bello, where the US showed consistently questionable judgment. Rather, I would simply like to suggest that this is the sort of situation that in which a war of law enforcement might apply.

Let's also clarify the status of certain sub-national entities, like the Palestinian Authority or to a lesser degree, Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. For purposes of our discussion, I suggest that we treat them as international actors on par with national entities in dealing with international law and the rules of war as they pertain to the situation.

In a war of law enforcement against sub-national entities, there are few legal precedents, but a rough sketch might go something like this:
1. Victims of violence from sub-national entities must first appeal to the government of the nation where the attack was carried out from (principle of territorial integrity) before taking military action itself.
2. Victim-state of the violence should appeal to the international community for law enforcement (civil) actions before taking military action.
3. In the lack of alternatives, pursued military action should target as directly as possible the perpetrating sub-national entity and not the nation-state it inhabits.
4. If the nation-state the sub-national offenders becomes complicit in their activities, the defender-state is justified in proportional response (jus in bello) against the sponsor nation-state.

Given those criteria, we could analyze the Israel-Hezbollah conflict as follows:
1. Lebanon has been ineffective historically at controlling Hezbollah, which wields profound influence due to its considerable funding and support from Syria and Iran. Therefore, Israel is probably justified in responding directly against Hezbollah, but not necessarily against Lebanon, who has not been shown to be complicit in Hezbollah's actions, and not against Syria or Iran, because neither nation has launched an attack on Israel directly.
2. Israel should respond to Hezbollah's actions proportionally. In responding to kidnapping of its soldiers with extensive missile attacks, Israel clearly overreacted and committed an aggressive crime against the people of Lebanon.
3. The international community is justified in the following actions:
a. Using legal tools against Hezbollah and Hamas in retaliation for bombings against civilian targets.
b. Negotiating a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon.
c. Sanctioning Iran, Syria, and/or Lebanon for their role in sponsoring terrorism.
d. Sanctioning Israel for any violations of jus in bello, including civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon.

The entire concept of waging war on "terrorists" is bogus.

There are probably terrorists in Canada. If a small group of them goes into Detroit from Windsor and kills some Americans, should the US bomb Canada in an attempt to "prevent the terrorists from from attacking again?"

This entire situation is absurd. Bush's ideas on "pre-emptive strikes" is dangerous, and wrong. Wars should be used as a last resort, not as the first "hit them before they hit us" style diplomacy.

One of the purpose of having countries, and governments, is to protect the people.
If the host government of an organization fails to curb the illegal and violently fatal activities of those within it's boarders,
then a government that is afflicted has the right to protect it's civilians from harm.

That's one of the basic reasons governments exist at all!
That's why we have militaries!

Probably is not a good enough argument. You gotta have dead bodies.
Pre-emptive strike is illegal in the world courts, (and hopefully Bushco will be put on trial someday.)

Ya can't justify killing people for something they might maybe do!

I don't think I agree there. There are terrorists out there, many of whom are not very good people who do very evil things for evil ends. The way we're going about fighting "terror" is even more immoral than what the terrorists themselves are doing, but truly free people DO have a right to defend themselves from terrorists and thugs. They do NOT have a right to kill innocents who get caught in the crossfire. I think we need to be very morally clear about that.


No, not at all. But I doubt that the Canadians would sit idly by while terrorists operate on their soil. Their law enforcement officials would probably join with US law enforcement officials to hunt the culprits down. And I doubt they would allow the terrorists representation in their parliament. Not that I think what Israel did was right, but I don't think we ought to equate that with the US and Canada--Lebanon has been either unable or unwilling to get Hezbollah under control.


I could not agree more there.

I never said that the Lebanese government is a state sponsor. Attacking Lebanese civilian infastructure is uncalled for; I said that in my assessment.

In fact I have the same opinion as most. The government of Lebanon is unable to control Hezbollah.

We agree on this.

dude, read my quote! I never claimed you did!

The government of Lebanon has called upon Hizbollah as well as upon Israel to stop. Both have ignored Lebanons pleas. And as to a little white kid growing up in Harlem, I wouldn't know. But, I was a little white kid growing up in SE Philly (same ethnic ratios), and I didn't have any problems. I was treated as an equal. You sound like you may have some underlying racial issues to work on. Oh, and while Judaism may have been around for 5000 years, Islam is relatively new, at about 1400 years. More than one, but also less than two. Look it up.

Zooks, I ponderd the last sentence of your post over the weekend. I might be stupid, but I don't get it. Would you mind?

"As well, the hatred between Muslims and the Jewish nation dates back thousands of years as well. This wasnt JUST about 2 soldiers being kidnapped."

The conflict between Jews and Arabs has only been going since the seventh century, when Islam was founded. Hundreds of years, not thousands. If the Jews' own version of their history is to be believed, the conflict that has been going on for thousands of years has been between middle-eastern Jews and whoever else was there. "Israel" has not traditionally played well with others. And to be sure, this was not simply about the capture of two soldiers. PNAC+AIPAC=DEATH.