[Qingu]

It looks like Israel and Lebanon are going to war, and if rumors are true about the abducted Israeli soldiers being transferred to Iran, this conflict could engulf the entire Middle East.

On one hand, Israel was completely out of line in its response against Lebanon. It seems common knowledge among the international community that the Lebanese government has no control over Hezbollah (the group that abducted the soldiers) so I really don't see Israel's response as anything but a provocation to war.

On the other hand, war is what many Muslim groups have been asking for, for a long time. Despite Israel's willingness to trade prisoners in the past, I am sure that Hezbollah expected a violent response from Israel. Judging from the posts on sunniforum (not representative, of course, but at least indicative), many Muslims are actually eager for a full out war with Israel. Iran has said they want Israel wiped from the map.

I think that Arab governments don't want war with Israel, because they already had wars with Israel in the 50s-70s and were completely defeated. They know the same thing will happen today. On the other hand, individual and non-government groups of Muslims do want war and believe that Allah will help them win.

Honestly, I am so disgusted with both sides of this conflict that I just don't care anymore. It's tragic for the innocent people who live there, but I wonder what percentage of people in the middle east actually want to avoid war.

I remember the Onion had a "What do you think" section about the Middle East conflict many years ago, and one of the responses was "Maybe we should stop thinking about this as a middle east crisis, and start thinking about it as middle east culture."

[eldestofvic]

You know it is funny (in a sick sort of way, I guess) but in some ways I'm kinda with the radical Muslims on this. I think that deep down I too want to see an all out war there.

I know it is sad (the potential for loss of life, the possibilty of involvement creep, etc. (hmm "involvement creep" did I just invent a new term?)). But I (and maybe I am representative, maybe not)... I want to see a clear winner there. I want to see the answers to the unanswered questions of the Middle East. I want one of the parties to find themselves in a position of sueing for peace at any cost.

[JerryLove]

I suspect that Isreal's logic is that they want to stay on the offence. If they negotiated, then they are defensive so they elect to act; they cannot locate the actual perpitrators, so they go after anything connected to them.

With several countries in the region having vowed to destroy Isreal, I don't think they care who they piss off there. They are interested in making sure that moemtium stayes on their side.

If the Lebaneese government is benign but ineffective, then toppling them works in Isreal's favor.
If the Lebaneese government is involved then toppling them works in Isreal's favor.

I'm curious what course of action you would propose for Isreal under the circumstances.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I suspect that Isreal's logic is that they want to stay on the offence. If they negotiated, then they are defensive so they elect to act; they cannot locate the actual perpitrators, so they go after anything connected to them.

With several countries in the region having vowed to destroy Isreal, I don't think they care who they piss off there. They are interested in making sure that moemtium stayes on their side.

If the Lebaneese government is benign but ineffective, then toppling them works in Isreal's favor.
If the Lebaneese government is involved then toppling them works in Isreal's favor.

I'm curious what course of action you would propose for Isreal under the circumstances.

Limited attacks against Hezbollah strongholds. If Lebanon cries "act of war" Israel responds "but you yourselves admit you have no sovereignty in these regions, which was your excuse for not being responsible for the abductions."

The airport attacks were completely unnecessary and a provocation of war against Lebanon entire.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by eldestofvic

You know it is funny (in a sick sort of way, I guess) but in some ways I'm kinda with the radical Muslims on this. I think that deep down I too want to see an all out war there.

I know it is sad (the potential for loss of life, the possibilty of involvement creep, etc. (hmm "involvement creep" did I just invent a new term?)). But I (and maybe I am representative, maybe not)... I want to see a clear winner there. I want to see the answers to the unanswered questions of the Middle East. I want one of the parties to find themselves in a position of sueing for peace at any cost.

Just as long as my tax dollars don't pay for Israeli warplanes.

[JerryLove]

Limited attacks against Hezbollah strongholds.

A good suggestion assuming such targets exist.

The airport attacks were completely unnecessary and a provocation of war against Lebanon entire.

They seem to be trying to shut down the borders of Lebanon. They've blockaded the seaport and destroied the runways on the airports. Their argument is that they are cutting off weapons to Hezbolah (and, presumably, interfering with the ability to bring in reenforcements and move out captured Israli soldiers).

Whether this is true, or it is (as Lebanon claims) an attack on their tourism industry I cannot say.

[exo]

There are two points of fact that I see missing from your analysis Qingu:

1) Hezbollah kidnapped *soldiers*. This is an act of war on Hezbollah's part.
2) Members of Hezbollah have *seats* in the Lebanese government.

This isn't a fringe terrorist organization that happens to reside in Lebanon. And it's the same for Hamas (the other terrorist organisation that kidnapped Israeli soldiers), but for them it is the Palestinian government and they actually lead that one.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by exo

There are two points of fact that I see missing from your analysis Qingu:

1) Hezbollah kidnapped *soldiers*. This is an act of war on Hezbollah's part.
2) Members of Hezbollah have *seats* in the Lebanese government.

This isn't a fringe terrorist organization that happens to reside in Lebanon. And it's the same for Hamas (the other terrorist organisation that kidnapped Israeli soldiers), but for them it is the Palestinian government and they actually lead that one.

You have a point, and I agree about Israel vs. Hamas, but everything I've read about Lebanon and Hezbollah implies that the Lebanese government simply has no control over Hezbollah in the southern regions. It sounds as if Hezbollah is an independant, autonomous government in the south of Lebanon, and the fact that they hold seats in Lebanon's government does not necessarily mean that the Lebanese government in total should be responsible for their actions.

A similar situation would be if a fringe anti-American Canadian group started attacking Americans accross the border. Let's say this group belongs to a political party that has seats in the Canadian government. However, Canada's government in no way sanctioned the attacks, and what's more it has little to no power in the area where this group resides and so cannot practically bring them in line. Would America be overreacting if it then declared war on Canada? I certainly think so. (Granted, tensions between Lebanon and Israel are a little hotter than between America and Canada, but I think the same principle should apply).

Something else to consider is the artificiality of nation-states. This is something that was essentially foisted upon Arabs in the 1800s and 1900s by European colonialists. I doubt that Hezbollah even thought for a second that their actions were sanctioned by the nation-state of Lebanon and I wonder if they even consider themselves part of a nation-state, other than the great caliphate of Islam.

[exo]

Good points. I wonder what percentage of the population of Lebanon 'belongs' to Hezbollah. Anyone know? I also wonder how many seats the Hezbollah hold. That might make the difference... I mean, if we knew that the group attacking us from Canada constituted *half* of the Canadian population, then that might be an act of war.

[exo]

I went and found some answers here:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...lah/index.html

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by eldestofvic

You know it is funny (in a sick sort of way, I guess) but in some ways I'm kinda with the radical Muslims on this. I think that deep down I too want to see an all out war there.

I know it is sad (the potential for loss of life, the possibilty of involvement creep, etc. (hmm "involvement creep" did I just invent a new term?)). But I (and maybe I am representative, maybe not)... I want to see a clear winner there. I want to see the answers to the unanswered questions of the Middle East. I want one of the parties to find themselves in a position of sueing for peace at any cost.

i've alway thought we should just let em fight and see who wins when the dust settles.

[MrCrabby]

Originally Posted by Bryan

i've alway thought we should just let em fight and see who wins when the dust settles.

Unfortunately, that will never happen as long as we have so much invested over there (i.e. Israel, oil, etc.).

[Boy Genius]

Originally Posted by Qingu

I wonder if they even consider themselves part of a nation-state, other than the great caliphate of Islam

Is there still such a thing as the caliphate? I thought it had been bascially destroyed a long time back.

/merely curious question

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Boy Genius

Is there still such a thing as the caliphate? I thought it had been bascially destroyed a long time back.

/merely curious question

Many Muslims see themselves as members of the ummah (Muslim community) first, before any nation. Likewise, many Muslims are hoping for a "caliphate" to unite the ummah in its struggle against the West/Israel/Satan whatever.

I think that Iran's president has even made mention to this, though I could be wrong. It's pretty obvious he sees himself as a general leader and inspirational voice of the ummah as a whole, not just leader of Iran.

[Jeffrey]

The Caliphate is a whole other can of worms. This is another place where Islam's past and Christendom's past are very similar - major schisms, political underpinnings, etc.

The "Dar es Islam" is the idea of a Muslim world in Islamic theology, the idea of the part of the world ruled by holy submission to God's Law, and the rest of the world (not that the rest of the world is therefore wholly evil in Islamic view, just not yet a part of the Dar es Islam).

There are elements of Christendom's past "entitlement" ideology of the Cross raised from shore to shore - likewise, there are many among Islam who consider themselves the servants of God and thus part of His Will to spread the way of submission to the world.

The caliphate question is a major element of what divides Sunni and the Shi'a - who was the intended and rightful successor to the Prophet?

I would presume a motivation for these non-governmental Islamic groups is that they feel stationary Islamic governments beholden to major external influence isn't conducive to spreading the "Dar es Islam."

Which, not to sound like an apologist for Islam, doesn't need to be spread by violent means. And before any modern Christians condemn Islam, note the obvious example of what we did to the Native Americans. In terms of expansion and land and settlement, it was us or them, speaking into historical terms. The "Christian" US chose to approach the issue on historical terms, instead of spiritual ones.

I had a discussion with a friend recently who described the Islamic world as a whole as barbaric. That terminology is a bit loaded, and while I agree that right now I favor "general" Western culture over the "general" culture of the Dar es Islam (with some important exceptions), I had to chime in that Western society has this skewed view of history that is upward mobile - a diagonal line pointing to the Heavens.

In truth, as many here know, Western civilization has had crests and troughs. Contrast the mid to late Romans with the Christian Middle Ages (running water vs. no running water; multiple competing religious frameworks vs. one resented religious authority).

Likewise, the Islamic world has had crests and troughs. Note my own bias - I'm counting diversity, enfrachisement, education, arts, decentralized family structures, etc. as the crests. Regardless, the Islamic world of past centuries often resembled the values of today's West, and our own Dark Ages could come back at any time. During the Dark Ages, Islam preserved classical learning in a time when the West couldn't. They revolutionized mathematical, astronomical, health concepts that had come to them from the West, but which had come to the West even longer before that from that same East.

Now, none of this should influence our foreign policy. I find Qingu's responses to modern Islam as a political force quite interesting.