Israel, unlike U.S., fights in self-defense
By Jo Ann Lynn
Have you cried for the children and innocent civilian victims who were killed by American bombs when we invaded Iraq? This is my question to all who condemn Israel for bombing Hezbollah targets.
Surely you do not believe that the more than 10,000 civilian casualties suffered when we bombed Iraq dropped dead of fear?
I am a liberal Democrat, which means I try very hard to see both sides of every issue. However, I have a hard time understanding the massive condemnation of Israel. Every nation has a right to protect itself. Wasn't Israel attacked first? Weren't several of its soldiers killed and two kidnapped by Hezbollah? Hasn't Hezbollah fired thousands of missiles into Israel? Hasn't it been proven during our military encounters with terrorist groups that they often hide among children, women and civilians?
Why, after more than 14 days of rocket fire on Israel by Hezbollah, were so many civilians, mostly women and children, in a place that was sure to be targeted by Israel?
I think I got an answer on "60 Minutes." A would-be terrorist declared, "What I want most for my only son is for him to die a martyr for Islam." This could be why we hear of more children and women being killed in Lebanon than in Israel, even though thousands of Hezbollah rockets are raining down on Israel. The Israelis have made every effort to hit only military targets and in some cases have dropped fliers warning civilians to leave prior to an attack.
Hezbollah counts on world opinion preventing Israel from striking back as long as it uses women and children as shields. It really is a win-win situation for Hezbollah.
I cannot condemn Israel. It took the high road, attacking no one until it was attacked. America cannot say the same. We attacked a country that had done nothing to us because we mistakenly thought its ruler had weapons of mass destruction. Dozens of people in Iraq die in terrorist attacks daily because we prepared to win but not to protect a country we occupied by force. How can anyone who supported the Bush war on Iraq condemn Israel?
The writer lives in Greensboro.
Comments (12)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Jo Ann,
Your counterpoint letter would have been more accurate if you had not cherry-picked the facts. As it stands, you have based your entire response on questionable/arguable assumptions. Sorry, but your letter is little more than your opinion. And we all have one.
Posted on August 7, 2006 4:55 AM
Yvonne,
Yep. No argument here.
Posted on August 7, 2006 6:05 AM
hey Jo ann, i thought i saw a save the whales bio-diesel van drive by....you could still catch it
Posted on August 7, 2006 6:14 AM
I thought the writer made some very good points. I do not support Israel unconditionally but think there are definitely two sides to this war and neither are right. Both have reason to fear and hate the other. Neither is willing to back down. While the majority of people in both countries probably want nothing more than to live their lives in peace, the militants on both sides would rather fight than negotiate.
I also agree that some who are horrified at the deaths in Lebanon could care less about the deaths in Iraq. I am horrified at both. I am most horrified that many of the dead in Iraq are dead because the USA started a war for no good reason with no end in sight.
Yvonne and Jan, what exactly did you disagree with?
Posted on August 7, 2006 7:55 AM
Carol,
In answer to your question my disagreement was with the invalid logic of the lte writer's last sentence.
"How can anyone who supported the Bush war on Iraq condemn Israel?"
As you know, I was and remain opposed to our actions in Iraq for a variety of reasons, so I am by no means a supporter of that action. I cannot however see it as anything but a severly stretched rationalization to equate support of the one with condemnation of the latter.
To do so, at least in my opinion, seems to be emphasizing the similarities while ignoring the many differences. I'm not being haughty here, but in my line of work one of the basic requirements is to try and gain a perspective without bias, and my impression is that the lte writer had a predetermined opinion and presented only such facts as would serve to buttress that conclusion.
As usual I've overstated myself, but my bottom line point is that it is conceivable that an individual could support or oppose one of the two mentioned actions without having the same attitude about the other.
I hope this clarifies my intended meaning.
Posted on August 7, 2006 8:29 AM
"I am a liberal Democrat, which means I try very hard to see both sides of every issue."
I wasn't aware that was how one defined a liberal Democrat. I would have thought that would have better defined an independent.
"How can anyone who supported the Bush war on Iraq condemn Israel?"
How does the writer get to this conclusion? I'm not aware that there are a large number of people that suport the Iraq war and condemn Israel. Who are those people?
Posted on August 7, 2006 9:00 AM
"I wasn't aware that was how one defined a liberal Democrat."
That's because you have been taught that it's a bad word and a slur.
See the definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal
Posted on August 7, 2006 9:42 AM
Thanks, Jan. Enjoy your "overstatements". Guess I really am an independent who is a registered Democrat, ORR. Have never unconditionally supported either party or their actions...see too much greed and corruption from both parties. Hope all voters will be independent come voting time.
Posted on August 7, 2006 9:45 AM
Carol,
I'd go one step further.
I hope we punish the Republicans at the polls due to their bait and switch governance. Conservative? They have spent like drunken sailors and have put a burden around the necks of our children. The war alone is a drain of badly needed assets--to the tune of $10 Billion a month.
If the Dems don't get the message, I would turn around and do the same to them! Bottom line for me is consistency. Being a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, I have no problem looking at both sides for answers to difficult questions. Just seems that the R's have screwed us royally for the past six to eight years.
Posted on August 7, 2006 10:55 AM
Deacon,
I hate to say it but the Dem's (overall) obviously have NOT gotten the message. I wouldn't bother waiting for them to get it now.
Vote independent and give them a chance.
Posted on August 7, 2006 3:09 PM
Denzien,
""tolerant of his opponent's opinions" is also part of the definition of liberal, so I guess you and some of your friends here don't qualify as liberals, being intolerant of other's opinions and comments. How do you know what I have been taught. Much of what I know about "liberals" comes from observing their actions and behaviors I don't believe that true liberals are bad and the word isn't a slur, although some that carry that name bring disrepute upon it on these pages. (Carol Dunn is excepted, as she is a liberal who conducts herself with dignity and respect for herself and others.)
Posted on August 8, 2006 12:32 AM
""tolerant of his opponent's opinions" is also part of the definition of liberal, so I guess you and some of your friends here don't qualify as liberals"
That's right. I'm an Independent. :)
Posted on August 8, 2006 9:09 AM