finally an interesting topic of discussion (even if I'm a bit late). It has been a pleasure to read the preceding conversation.
Personally, I would tend to side with ESL Teacher on this one.
It is detrimental to all the effort that continues to be spent to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East if Israel can act against international law with impunity, when other nations in the area face serious consequences in the form of economical sanctions and/or military intervention as a result of such actions.
Yes, Israel had made it clear that it would retaliate massively in the event of any transgression against it. But let's not forget that a major reason why Israel is facing potential aggression is its own forced expansion well beyond its borders as stated by the original UN agreement, into areas already populated with people many of whom were displaced by the establishment of the state in the first place.
To put it provocatively bluntly, Israel is a land-grabbing state that never had the right to exist, even if its conception was understandable. However, the idea some Arab nations have of abolishing it entirely is wholly ridiculous and unsupportable. This is now a fully-fledged nation whose citizens cannot be penalized for being thus. The only solution is to somehow forge a peace that sufficently recognizes the concerns of all parties and is irrevocably binding...but I doubt any such an agreement can exist even in principle.
On the other hand, it could be argued that Hizbollah was acting extremely unscrupulously and knowingly inviting massive fire on Lebanon and a people whom it does not officially represent, merely in order to influence the international opinion and raise antipathy for Israel using its military might exactly as it had warned it would; it was war as propaganda, never mind the destruction of lives.
This is a complex issue hard to untangle and I don't claim to be as well informed as I could be, but after following various media with varying slant on the turmoil in the Middle East for two decades I would conclude that Israel is certainly not a stabilizing influence; however, I don't think there would be stability either were Israel out of the picture. We are talking about an area where major religions and diverse geopolitical interests converge, and the mix is highly flammable. Conflict in this area has profound historical roots, and any solution unfortunately is likely to be short-lived.
Now if only in every country we could keep religion and government separate...
Hello all,
finally an interesting topic of discussion (even if I'm a bit late). It has been a pleasure to read the preceding conversation.
Personally, I would tend to side with ESL Teacher on this one.
It is detrimental to all the effort that continues to be spent to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East if Israel can act against international law with impunity, when other nations in the area face serious consequences in the form of economical sanctions and/or military intervention as a result of such actions.
Yes, Israel had made it clear that it would retaliate massively in the event of any transgression against it. But let's not forget that a major reason why Israel is facing potential aggression is its own forced expansion well beyond its borders as stated by the original UN agreement, into areas already populated with people many of whom were displaced by the establishment of the state in the first place.
To put it provocatively bluntly, Israel is a land-grabbing state that never had the right to exist, even if its conception was understandable. However, the idea some Arab nations have of abolishing it entirely is wholly ridiculous and unsupportable. This is now a fully-fledged nation whose citizens cannot be penalized for being thus. The only solution is to somehow forge a peace that sufficently recognizes the concerns of all parties and is irrevocably binding...but I doubt any such an agreement can exist even in principle.
On the other hand, it could be argued that Hizbollah was acting extremely unscrupulously and knowingly inviting massive fire on Lebanon and a people whom it does not officially represent, merely in order to influence the international opinion and raise antipathy for Israel using its military might exactly as it had warned it would; it was war as propaganda, never mind the destruction of lives.
This is a complex issue hard to untangle and I don't claim to be as well informed as I could be, but after following various media with varying slant on the turmoil in the Middle East for two decades I would conclude that Israel is certainly not a stabilizing influence; however, I don't think there would be stability either were Israel out of the picture. We are talking about an area where major religions and diverse geopolitical interests converge, and the mix is highly flammable. Conflict in this area has profound historical roots, and any solution unfortunately is likely to be short-lived.
Now if only in every country we could keep religion and government separate...