Originally Posted by Stu Monty
I accept that it was a little bit of a saucy comparison but it was to try and get a point across about the interchangeable use of the words terrorist and war whenever it suits certain agendas.
The Hebollah situation is not a simple one but they are fighting for the rights of Arabs. The motivations are obviously going to be very different within the group. There will be factions who are just manically anti-Israeli and don't care about a Palestinian state or the right of Arabs to live with amenities and the ability to work without fear of violence. Then there will be factions that do care about that side of the debate.
If the Israeli's are doing whatever they like, taking and no doubt torturing prisoners, left right and centre then someone has to do something to stop them. If the UN or the international community as a whole won't do anything that leaves you pretty isolated. It doesn't make diplomatic sense for any one arab nation to start an all out war with Israel as they are the regional superpower with the military might. In the end it comes down to an Arab resistance funded by arab countries looking to defend their people.
I'd be interested to see how bitter, twisted and anti-German the British would have become after 30 years of that kind of treatment if we'd have lost the war. Each unjustified death fuelling the hatred and spawning a generation of would be martyrs.
|
another interesting hypothesis, Stu - though I agree broadly with your argument. In fact, the intellectual case for Israel existence as a country is far more tenuous than the emotive case. The case for Israel, as it exists today, and as it governs today, has even less in common with logic than that of the former Yugoslavia.