How can Israel act in self defense by killing 1000 civilians so far and by destroying civilian infrastructure?

Question

Come on! this is state terrorism! and we are not antisemotik(whatever!)

Answer 1

Fist of all I am not defending Hezbollah or any terrorist organisation.

Israel's claim of its right of "self defense" by killing 600+ Lebanese civilians including children and by destroying Lebanese infrastructure in retaliation of the capture of two Israeli soldiers is comparable to the "right of self defense" of German Nazi SS in WWII, when they rounded up and executed ~30 villagers in occupied zones for each German soldier killed by the resistance.
Israel is doing it in a bigger scale and in more arrogant way.

Basically in both cases when you cannot get a hold of the enemy you punish and murder innocent civilians, who are unable to prevent your loss. It's like you had a neighbor who was weak and unable to get rid of a gangster intruding into their home; One day the gangster slapped your face and got away. Now you bashed the head of your neighbor's children and burned up their house for punishment.

The right of self defense is subject to the commandment of proportionality.

It's strange that the people who suffered Holocaust now bring suffering to other peoples. Israel's claim of their "by God promised Land" in Palestine and beyond after almost 2000 years is also questionable. What would it be if native Americans claimed their ancestor ground back from white men, or Mexico wanted to reoccupy Texas, California and New Mexico. Those losses of land were not long ago just 200-250 years in comparison to 2000 years of the Israeli losing their country.

That sounds hard but it's true. Israel should be happy with what they have and not pursue Great-Israel-ism as they were 2000 years ago. The Old Testament told us how Israelites extinguished tribe after tribe in their expansion.

Answer 2

If the cowardly Hezbollah wore uniforms, it might be a little easier to know the civilians from the soldiers. If Hezbollah didn't want the civilians as shields, why won't they let them flee the battlezone? Hezbollah has killed the civilians in Lebanon (and I doubt if it is 1000 people). Not Israel.

Here is a question I have been asking. What would you do if your neighbor was shooting out your windows several times a month? What would you do if the same neighbor started yelling about killing you and your family? Going to burn your house down? You can't move. Are you going to sit there and take it? Or, eventually do something about your neighbor?

Answer 3

Israel has been bombarded by Hezbollah terrorist rockets and gunfire for years. They have the right to defend themselves. Hezbollah terrorists put the civilians out as shields then parade around their dead bodies for the cameras for propaganda purposes. I think people believe that if Hezbollah gained Israel’s territory that they would be happy and all the terrorist conflict would end there. I know this is not the case. Terrorist Muslims hide behind a cloak of religion whilst they seek to gain ultimate world power. The Koran states that Allah cannot return until the world is cleansed of all infidels (anyone who does not believe in Allah).You start to get a understanding of why they hate the rest of the non-Muslim world when you read the tenants in the Koran and the Hadiths.I read more militant rhetoric in the Koran and Hadiths than I ever heard or read in my eight years active duty in the Army. These Muslim holy books call for them to do all that you have seen the terrorists doing in the last 50 years. It should not be a surprise to anyone that they are doing what they’re bible and Muslim clerics tell them to.Isreal is just a speed bump and the rest of the world is the mission. If you don’t believe that the average Muslim agrees with the terrorist’s actions then explain to me why they were dancing in the streets after 9/11.Good day to all of you, and may our future generations never have to endure the scourge of religious tyranny in the future.

Answer 4

Anyway.. i'm not even going to go into how wrong Issac has his facts. I'll just pretend that was Israeli Prime Minister Olmet writing that himself.

Israel is acting in the same manner that the US did in Iraq. If you would like to do some more research on that the right to self defence is, the landmark case for this issue is the "Caroline case". You may also find it called "The case of the S.S. Caroline"

To sum up the case, a nation may have the right to defend itself if and only if all of the 5 conditions are met:

i. The threat is immediate and spontanious.
ii. The responce is not premeditated.
iii. The responce or self-defence is proportional to the threat (causal).
iv. There are no alternate means for neutralizing the threat.
v. There is no luxury of time for negotiations or less drastic measures.

Let us take a hypothetical: South Korean intellegence just finds out that North Korea has a WMD ready to be launched at 5am, the time this information arrives is at 2am.

Now, in responce to this news, South Korean military forces make their way into North Korea with "some" damage to the Country as a result of fighting, and neutralize the threat.

You can see how this hypothetical satisfies the conditions names above.

Now, you may ask, did South Korea need to go to the UN first!?

The answer is NO!!!

Every member of the United Nations has the right to Self-Defence under the United Nations Charter and may do so without the permission of the United Nations or any action under Chapter VII of the Charter itself. (see UN Charter).

Now, let's skip the Iraq War and jump strait into your questions since the two are similar and after examination, you should have your question fully answered.

First of all, i've noticed you called Israel's responce "State Terrorism". The term "State Terrorism" is an oxymoron. If it is terrorism, then it follows that it does not involve the state, if it involves the state, then it follows that it cannot be terrorism.

The term State Terrorism makes no sence. If you are using the word terrorism in its figurative sence rather than international law definition, then you mean to say: "The State of Israel is terrorising the people of Lebanon".

Now, to the events.

Israel and the U.S. claim that this conflict started when two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped and taken into Lebanon by a terrorist organization, and then; rockets started to be fired from this terrorist organization onto the northern part of Israel.

European, Russian and Chinese sources however claim that the kidnappings took place within the Lebanese borders, implying that the two soldiers illegally crossed over the boarder and violated "territoriality". And, it was a responce to the 6 Lebanese civilians that were sent to Israeli prisons early that week. The rockets they claim were also a responce to the advancement of tanks, and the terrorist organization had issued a warning telling Israel to not cross the border or else it would start firing rockets. The International Community rejects the notion of self-defence for the following reasons:

i. There was no threat present to the state of Israel from the kidnapping of two soldiers.
ii. The bombing of the bridges, airports and blockade of sea ports took place within hours of the kidnapping. This implies that the responce to the kidnappings was premeditates, and Greek Naval Intelligence shows 18 Israeli naval vessels heading to Lebanon half an hour after the time Israel claims the kidnappings took place.
iii. The responce was not proportionate from hour Israel crossed the border into Lebanon. However, after counting the casualties, which are now just over 600, not 1000!, the responce is not proportionate.
iv. The terrorist organization presented the option of a prisoner exchange which Israel rejected, Israel did not hold negotiations, rather took a military offensive within hours of the news.
v. Under International Law, and Islamic Law, these soldiers cannot be harmed or killed. Their status had been reported, and there was time for negotiations had Israel not taken a military offencive.

Now.. After Israel crossed the border, which it was warned not to, the situation changes!!!

Israel has the right to act in self-defence when 120 are hitting Northern Israel every hour!

However, It is in violation of International Law ONLY because at this point it is causing destruction to Lebanese civilians and property such as infostructure and economy. Israel faces a tricky situation because acting in self-defence, to neutralize a terrorist threat that is now taking place, and some may argue that Israel provoked to take place.. It is killing Lebanese civilians and destroying Lebanon in the process.

By definition, it can be held accountable for the destruction it has caused to Lebanon, simply because it is not acting in self-defence against Lebanon, but against a terrorist organization within Lebanon.

Furthermore, the responce is not proportionate. There are less than 80 deaths on the Israeli side, and just over 600 deaths on the Lebanese side. If we are to question the two soldiers, it is easy to come to the conclusion that this invasion was premeditated and unjustified. We can say with certainty that these actions that Israel is taking do not constitute valid grounds for self-defence, BUT, are nevertheless necessary to neutralize a present threat.

Feel free to ask me more, if you find something missing in my answer.

-Angelo-

Answer 5

This is a war. Unfortunately innocent people are killed. We are doing the same thing in Iraq as we did in Afghanistan and Viet Nam. In this case I think Israel has right to defend itself and to finish what someone else started since they are in battle with a next door neighbor. Just an additional note. Isnt it funny how the USA has not really done any meaningful intervention to bring about a cease fire? Israel is our biggest ally and they are at war with Arabs. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, just makes me wonder.

Answer 6

Because, the civilian infrastructure is supporting the terrorists... There is no separation, and the alternative is open war against Lebannon (who openly supports Hezbollah) as opposed to only against Hezbollah... The lady or the tiger my friend... which do you choose???

Answer 7

I agree and so does most of the world. If it were not for the U.S. veto power there would be many sanctions against Israel not only for what they're doing now but for the many resolutions that they have filed against them for stealing land, which is the root cause of all this non-sense over there.

Answer 8

But it is just fine for Hezbollah right?

Answer 9

gods chosen people you know.be careful what u say or god will smote you.God has given permision for the jews to kill and terrorise.great God we have.

Answer 10

tell the other side to stop hiding there, and come out and fight.