The Middle East Continues...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BlackCat
That should be the only "legal" reason to fight israel since it's the only potential lebanese soil that israel is on.

[...]

In my pow, then the israelis doesn't have any interest in attacking lebanon except for one thing - and that is hizb because they attack israel. Hizb on the other side claims that they are only defending lebanon and they only fight against israeli attacks.

That's your pov (btw, "pow" means "prisoner of war", just a minor quibble).

But now, try to take the other perspective. The perspective of an Arab living in Lebanon. I'll try to do the impression:

Israel isn't shy about attacking Lebanon. Never has been. And the Israelis can't be trusted: even though they promise a truce, they do attack. Israel has spurious excuses, which only add insult to the injury. They pretend to kill hundreds, including dozens of children, for the sake of two captured soldiers we're willing to negociate about. And they feel they're in the right, at that. Now, we all know it's but an excuse: after their defeat, they still haven't got their prisoners back, but it sure didn't prevent them from ruining the electric grid, from creating a black tide, and from stripping hundreds of thousands of peaceful Lebanese off their lifestyle.

We can't trust such a rabid neighbour. And this war has shown one thing: we can't trust the international community either. We can only count on ourselves to defend against this perpetual menace. We need a strong protection, or else we are still going to be raped by the next Israeli leader who has a hardon for war.

If Israel wasn't constantly threatening us, that would be a different story. But you just can't reason with them. They understand only force.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


Fine for them. Let them prove or argue their point.

You might try doing that instead of slinging insults as a first resort.

Yes.

Being a state does not inherently grant legitimacy.

In your pov, what does?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You might try doing that instead of slinging insults as a first resort.

Given our relative track-record in making semi-accurate predictions about what will happen in the ME on a variety of issues, I have to question why I bother anymore most of the time.

In your pov, what does?

Adherence to the central values of the day. IN our modern, "democratic" world, at the minimum popular (NOT NATIONAL!) sovereignty. Hizbullah represent the Shiites of southern Lebanon in ways the central government of Lebanon has failed utterly for 40 years to do. In a sense, Hizbullah represents its "people" more than the Syrian government does the people of Syria, or Israel does its Arab citizens.

Certainly the club of States has every interest in delegitimizing NGO's ability to break their monopoly of force, but then, so many States are of such questionable legitimacfy that in general it is a doomed attempt.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Spiffor

That's your pov (btw, "pow" means "prisoner of war", just a minor quibble).

Spell nazi.

But now, try to take the other perspective. The perspective of an Arab living in Lebanon. I'll try to do the impression:

Israel isn't shy about attacking Lebanon. Never has been. And the Israelis can't be trusted: even though they promise a truce, they do attack. Israel has spurious excuses, which only add insult to the injury. They pretend to kill hundreds, including dozens of children, for the sake of two captured soldiers we're willing to negociate about. And they feel they're in the right, at that. Now, we all know it's but an excuse: after their defeat, they still haven't got their prisoners back, but it sure didn't prevent them from ruining the electric grid, from creating a black tide, and from stripping hundreds of thousands of peaceful Lebanese off their lifestyle.

We can't trust such a rabid neighbour. And this war has shown one thing: we can't trust the international community either. We can only count on ourselves to defend against this perpetual menace. We need a strong protection, or else we are still going to be raped by the next Israeli leader who has a hardon for war.

If Israel wasn't constantly threatening us, that would be a different story. But you just can't reason with them. They understand only force.

Nice, but isn't that the real problem ? The lie about israeli agression that seems to be considered a common truth amongst arabs. Both egypt and jordan can live peacefully with israel despite the fact that they share common boarders. There are only one reason that israel is aggresive on the lebanese boarder and that is that hizb are making attacks.

Your nice story is just an attempt to remove the focus from those that really are to blame for this menace,

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
What grants states greater legitimacy than NGO's to use force?

I'll take the Treaties of Münster and Osnabrück for 200, Alex.

Spiffor: I'm still curious why France would torpedo the force expansion operating under the mandate they argued for. Any further info?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap




Given our relative track-record in making semi-accurate predictions about what will happen in the ME on a variety of issues, I have to question why I bother anymore most of the time.

Quite full of yourself, yes?

Adherence to the central values of the day. IN our modern, "democratic" world, at the minimum popular (NOT NATIONAL!) sovereignty. Hizbullah represent the Shiites of southern Lebanon in ways the central government of Lebanon has failed utterly for 40 years to do. In a sense, Hizbullah represents its "people" more than the Syrian government does the people of Syria, or Israel does its Arab citizens.

Assuming this is granted, and Hezbollah are legitimate in their use of force vs a foreign state, what is your problem with that state then firing back on a state to state basis, ie war?

Certainly the club of States has every interest in delegitimizing NGO's ability to break their monopoly of force, but then, so many States are of such questionable legitimacfy that in general it is a doomed attempt.

I agree it is in the interests of the 'club of states' to deny (deligitimise is a little premature since they aren't legitimate to begin with) legitimacy to NGOs as agents using force.

Things get more than a little messy when citizens begin appointing themselves to make war on states that neighbour them. You end up with said neighbours reacting rather angrily.

Can you see the end result of what you are advocating?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Spell nazi.

It's very funny when one non-English speaker begins to correct another, especially given some of the slips any English user can make when posting in haste (including certain very reasonable Frenchmen ).

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'll take the Treaties of Münster and Osnabrück for 200, Alex.

Sorry, but an agreement by states between states can hardly be applied to non-signatories, ie. NGO's.

[notyoueither]

Laws don't apply unless we individually agree to them?

What a wonderful world...

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Quite full of yourself, yes?

Sorry to point out an obvious truth.

Assuming this is granted, and Hezbollah are legitimate in their use of force vs a foreign state, what is your problem with that state then firing back on a state to state basis, ie war?

What I said was that Israel would fail to achieve its stated goals militarilly, and that it can't attain peace militarily. Its not an issue of legitimacy. Its an issue of effectiveness.

I agree it is in the interests of the 'club of states' to deny (deligitimise is a little premature since they aren't legitimate to begin with) legitimacy to NGOs as agents using force.

Things get more than a little messy when citizens begin appointing themselves to make war on states that neighbour them. You end up with said neighbours reacting rather angrily.

Can you see the end result of what you are advocating?

Citizen won't really make those choices if they feel the state they live in is legitimate. The problem arises when the State fails to be legitimate, and something has to fill the vaccuum. The problem is that in Southern Lebanon, Israeli bombs and troops hardly delegitimize Hizbullah, and the central Lebanese government is too hapless, corrupt, and split by secterian issues to be legitimate in its current form.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Laws don't apply unless we individually agree to them?

What a wonderful world...

So you believe all laws are legitimate because a state made them?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


So you believe all laws are legitimate because a state made them?

They are as legitimate as the bodies that make them.

Bad laws are the province of the citizens of a state to change, as are bad governments.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Sorry, but an agreement by states between states can hardly be applied to non-signatories, ie. NGO's.

NGO's have no real basis for claiming legitimacy when it comes to the use of force. Furthermore, democracy isn't a valid metric when it comes to determining the legitimacy of states. China is every bit as legitimate a state as France or the US.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap

Sorry to point out an obvious truth.

As obviuosly truthful as your very next statement.

Assuming this is granted, and Hezbollah are legitimate in their use of force vs a foreign state, what is your problem with that state then firing back on a state to state basis, ie war?

What I said was that Israel would fail to achieve its stated goals militarilly, and that it can't attain peace militarily. Its not an issue of legitimacy. Its an issue of effectiveness.

Too bad they already have gained peace by convincing neighbours that the military was no longer an acceptable option, depending on who you read.

As far as effectiveness is concerned, this isn't over yet. I hope it is, and if my hope is confirmed Israel's recent actions will force real changes in Lebanon. If my hopes are dashed, which is likely, it is only a matter of time before this begins anew because I don't expect a Hezbollah leopard to change its spots.

Citizen won't really make those choices if they feel the state they live in is legitimate. The problem arises when the State fails to be legitimate, and something has to fill the vaccuum. The problem is that in Southern Lebanon, Israeli bombs and troops hardly delegitimize Hizbullah, and the central Lebanese government is too hapless, corrupt, and split by secterian issues to be legitimate in its current form.

So, Saudis chose to fly across the big pond and hurl themselves at buildings while wrapped in airplanes because they feel the Saudi state is illegitimate?

And AQ being practically part of the Taliban government sponsored these 'NGO' actions because they were unhappy with the legitimacy of the government of Afghanistan?

But let's put aside that howler.

You have just called the government of Lebanon illegitimate and asserted that Hezbollah are. Why do you care that the neighbour who was the target of the 'legitimate' authority in Lebanon created a state of war between the states and Israel obliged by making war on Lebanon at the invitation of the only 'legitimate' authority in the country?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
NGO's have no real basis for claiming legitimacy when it comes to the use of force. Furthermore, democracy isn't a valid metric when it comes to determining the legitimacy of states. China is every bit as legitimate a state as France or the US.

States have no real basis for claiming legitimacy either, when you get down to it. States have claimed legitimacy upon themselves and have, through their general control of force made their definitions the definition that is too be accepted.

To claim only states have the legitimacy of using force is to invalidate any and all rebel movements. As Spiff already mentioned, if only states have legitimacy in using force, then the Kurds in 1991 had no legitmacy to use force against the Iraqi state, and one has to question the decision of the west to limit the ability of the Iraqi state to use force within its own borders to prevent it from eliminating an illegitimate force.