Entry 364, on 2006-07-17 at 13:58:07 (Rating 4, Politics)
I'm not going to blame Israel totally for the current violence in Lebanon, but they should be setting an example of restraint instead of making the whole situation so much worse. Israel isn't known for its moderation in these situations, and there is no doubt that the Hezbollah have to take a lot of the blame, but this is one time where Israel should have backed down, I think.
Many commentators are accusing Israel of launching a retaliation which is out of all proportion to the original "crime". This seems obvious to me, but where did they get the idea that this sort of response was justified? Is someone else setting a bad example?
I blame our old friend George Bush. Didn't America do the same sort of thing in Iraq - and perhaps to a lesser extent in Afghanistan? Have these American acts of aggression acted as a model for other states who are just waiting for an excuse to make war on their neighbours? I think this must be happening to a certain extent. There does appear to be a more hard-line, extreme view which has been created by this convenient "war on terror".
The idea of a war on terror is particularly problematic for me. Maybe some sort of swift military retaliation for terrorist attacks (especially 9/11) is justifiable, but long-term war against other states is surely counter-productive. Of course it is only counter-productive if you accept the genuine aim is to eliminate terrorism. If the hidden aim is to secretly foster it to provide a convenient enemy and unite your allies, then maybe its not such a bad idea. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be working either!
There are no comments for this entry.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE