Thursday, July 20, 2006

Israel Vs Lebanon: Ceasefire now

When we set up here, we decided we'd avoid foreign policy. Partially because we wanted to focus on domestic + EU, partially because, well, quagmire. Especially when our Government seems intent on invading the entire Muslim world and supporting Israel regardless of circumstance. Generally, I agree with Garry (as usual). Specifically, I agree with Ming Campbell.

On domestic policy, I still have disagreements with the Lib Dems. On foreign policy, I've been broadly in agreement for as long as I can remember. On this, Ming's approach seems spot on. Shame the US is intent on giving Israel all the time it needs to (re)destroy a struggling, nascent state.

As I said in a comment on Garry's post:
If faced with similar circumstances, there's not a country I can think of that wouldn't pursue a legitimate armed response. Why should Israel be expected to behave any differently in that regard?

It shouldn't. Thing is, it isn't.

this isn't a legitimate armed response. It's overkill and then some. The Lebanese Govt is new, barely established and far too weak to control the militants directly. Israel knows that.

Legitimate reponse fine. Disproportionate overkil?

No way.
And, although I disagree with some of his take on it, Richard at Leninology has a good selection of coverage not being picked up by certain elements of the media. Given I don't actually watch TV, how are the various channels managing tog et all sides across?
Technorati tags: , , ,


Anonymous said...

I agree with Ming too. 20 years ago I would have thought it inconceivable that a Labour Party Prime Minister would not call for an immediate ceasefire and condemn this brutal overkill response by Israel. Sadly, that's how far we've sunk.  

Posted by Bob Piper

Anonymous said...

Israel has the right to defend itself, even if their enemy is a small country, Israel didnt start it. 

Posted by Urban