There is intense debate about who is the victor in the month long war between Israel and Hezbollah. Even though Israeli government itself is not claimimg any victory rather doing an introspection as to why they couldn't defeat Hezbollah decisively, there are a lot of people claiming victory for them.
Unlike Israel, Hezbollah claims victory. So are a lot of its supporters that includes the Iranian President.
I am neither pro-Israel nor pro-hezbollah on this subject, but I want to comment on my understanding of how I determine any victory, whether in a boxing/wrestling ring or in a war.
To me the Victor is always the one who stands his ground, not the one who runs away or retreats from the ring or the warfront.
The day and moment Hezbollah ran away from the battle ground and hid among the civilians, they had lost the war, (of course they have not lost the fight), irrespective of who killed how many and who brought about more damage & destruction.
A war, in the real sense of WAR, is always fought on the warfront, the battle ground. And the victor is the one who stays his ground in the warfront till the end, not the one who goes into hiding.
If anybody`s definition of victory is different, it is a pathetic understanding of war and victory.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Sunday, September 3, 2006
Are The Terror Outfits Getting Legitimacy?
If the recently concluded war between Israel and the outfit Hezbollah is anything to go by, it looks like the terror outfits are getting legitimized. By mediating between a nation state on the one hand and an independent outfit on the other which is not accountable or responsible to any international body, isn't the UN indirectly legitimizing the outfit?
The very fact that the Lebanese military was missing in action throughout the 34 day war is a proof that this fight had nothing to do with any Lebanese cause, something for which the Lebanese government stood. Otherwise how can a national military stand mute witness to another nation invading its territory, leave alone bombing its towns and cities?
It was alright for Lebanese military to fight this war because national governments can be expected to comply with the UN mandates. And if a government doesn't, it can be subjected to various sanctions and embargoes. However, an organization that does not even recognize the international community can never be reined. There is nothing official in it that can be reined in.
Has Hezbollah proved itself to be a responsible outfit that UN thought of mediating and asking for a dialogue? Can UN bring about a real truce with conditions binding an independent outfit? Ironically the UN is mediating for an outfit which has over the last two years blatantly disregarded its Security Council resolution 1559 of September 2004. Weapons, let alone war, in the hands of any such outfit can be very dangerous because they act unilaterally at their whims and fancies.
Tomorrow will the UNSC have the same approach towards Al-Qaeda, a Sunni Islamist organization. The most prominent members of the group are adherents of Salafism, a fundamentalist sect of Sunni Islam, just as Hezbollaz is a Shi’ite one. As Al-Qaeda is prominent in Afghanistan, will it be allowed to procure weapons and fight a war? Haven't they proved themselves to be a terror outfit than a responsible organization.
Whether UN puts condition on them or not, these outfits will go ahead and procure and amass weapons, but by mediating and asking for a dialogue isn’t UN legitimizing them?
The very fact that the Lebanese military was missing in action throughout the 34 day war is a proof that this fight had nothing to do with any Lebanese cause, something for which the Lebanese government stood. Otherwise how can a national military stand mute witness to another nation invading its territory, leave alone bombing its towns and cities?
It was alright for Lebanese military to fight this war because national governments can be expected to comply with the UN mandates. And if a government doesn't, it can be subjected to various sanctions and embargoes. However, an organization that does not even recognize the international community can never be reined. There is nothing official in it that can be reined in.
Has Hezbollah proved itself to be a responsible outfit that UN thought of mediating and asking for a dialogue? Can UN bring about a real truce with conditions binding an independent outfit? Ironically the UN is mediating for an outfit which has over the last two years blatantly disregarded its Security Council resolution 1559 of September 2004. Weapons, let alone war, in the hands of any such outfit can be very dangerous because they act unilaterally at their whims and fancies.
Tomorrow will the UNSC have the same approach towards Al-Qaeda, a Sunni Islamist organization. The most prominent members of the group are adherents of Salafism, a fundamentalist sect of Sunni Islam, just as Hezbollaz is a Shi’ite one. As Al-Qaeda is prominent in Afghanistan, will it be allowed to procure weapons and fight a war? Haven't they proved themselves to be a terror outfit than a responsible organization.
Whether UN puts condition on them or not, these outfits will go ahead and procure and amass weapons, but by mediating and asking for a dialogue isn’t UN legitimizing them?
Who's A Loser In A Proxy War?
Obviously, the one which is an elected government, one who is signatory to a whole lot of treaties, one who is accountable to world bodies like the U.N. and is usually the one who is reined in through any resolution, one who has a possiblity of embargo against it, one who has a lot at stake if it doesn't pay heed to the call of other nations.
Isn't an outfit which is not accountable to the international community, or to any world body or to any state, always the winner; especially when it demands an ethical, moral and (paradoxically) a diplomatically lawful treatment that the nations in the world usually offer to a legitimate state? There's nothing official in it that can be reined in. Win-Win. Eat your cake, and keep it too.
Isn't an outfit which is not accountable to the international community, or to any world body or to any state, always the winner; especially when it demands an ethical, moral and (paradoxically) a diplomatically lawful treatment that the nations in the world usually offer to a legitimate state? There's nothing official in it that can be reined in. Win-Win. Eat your cake, and keep it too.
Who is Guilty of Killing Civilians, Israel or Hezbollah?
From day one of the recent war, Israeli missiles have been killing more civilians than Hezbollah's, and there's no doubt about it. But, just because Hezbollah’s attacks got less victims does not mean they are morally on a higher ground. In fact it is Hezbollah which has been firing much more rockets at Israeli civilians than the number of missiles Israel was firing.
Do the rules of engagement not apply to Hezbollah at all? Hezbollah rockets fired at Israel do not even make a pretence of targeting anyone else but civilians. The Hezbollah has been doing this for some time, as its rockets are too inaccurate to do anything else.
Hence we must not fault Israelis alone, especially when they are the ones at the receiving end. One must not expect Israelis alone to display a higher degree of morality than the Hezbollah, given the fact that they are usually the ones targeted first. Israel is not a willing — or for that matter, the only — sinner.
Does Victim-hood gives the outfit the moral high ground of retaliation... Hezbollah, backed by sensibilities championing the ‘underdog’, cannot be made exempt from the immorality of killing civilians- on either side of the border; on one side targeting them, on the other side using them as shields.
Do the rules of engagement not apply to Hezbollah at all? Hezbollah rockets fired at Israel do not even make a pretence of targeting anyone else but civilians. The Hezbollah has been doing this for some time, as its rockets are too inaccurate to do anything else.
“Discussions around the world about the conflict have taken on an abstract air — even that of a sporting battle in which it has become de rigeur to cheer the underdog for the simple reason that it is the underdog. As in all other conflicts, distinction between who is wrong and who is more wrong blurs as violence continues...” (HT Delhi Editorial on August 9, 2006)None of us can condone Israeli policy of targeting civilians, nor am I. But its wrong to expect a morally right/correct response from Israelis alone. All that Israelis were doing, is to ‘get down to the level of their enemies’ and not worse. Israelis are NOT MORE bothered than Hezbollah (or only as much bothered as Hezbollah is) regarding civilian casualties. On what basis can one tell Israelis that do not do more damage/civilian casualties than what Hezbollah does. As if Hezbollah is the scale/standard to measure Israeli retaliation.
Hence we must not fault Israelis alone, especially when they are the ones at the receiving end. One must not expect Israelis alone to display a higher degree of morality than the Hezbollah, given the fact that they are usually the ones targeted first. Israel is not a willing — or for that matter, the only — sinner.
Does Victim-hood gives the outfit the moral high ground of retaliation... Hezbollah, backed by sensibilities championing the ‘underdog’, cannot be made exempt from the immorality of killing civilians- on either side of the border; on one side targeting them, on the other side using them as shields.
Isn't Hezbollah A Terrorist Outfit?
It is argued by many, especially the Lebanese, that Hezbollah is not a terrorist group. It's a political party, that they're Lebanese people, that they work in Lebanese government, that they have ministers in Lebanese Parliament...
Isn't it a fact that almost all terrorist organizations in the world have backing from some political party or the other. And invariably many have their people in the Government. If because of these an organization does not become a terrorist outfit, then there are no terrorist organizations in the world. Consider Taliban; it is also a very strong political party and earlier had its people in the Govt. and from 1996-2001 they WERE the Afghan Government.
And if the issue for the war between Hezbollah and Israel was a Lebanese one, something that Lebanese govt. itself stood for, then why was Lebanese army missing in action when a foreign military invaded its territory, leave alone bombing its towns?
The UN Security Council Resolution 1559, of September 2004 calling for the disbanding of Hezbollah’s fighting force and the extension of Lebanese government control over the entire country, goes to establish and attest Hezbollah's true identity as a terrorist outfit.
Isn't it a fact that almost all terrorist organizations in the world have backing from some political party or the other. And invariably many have their people in the Government. If because of these an organization does not become a terrorist outfit, then there are no terrorist organizations in the world. Consider Taliban; it is also a very strong political party and earlier had its people in the Govt. and from 1996-2001 they WERE the Afghan Government.
And if the issue for the war between Hezbollah and Israel was a Lebanese one, something that Lebanese govt. itself stood for, then why was Lebanese army missing in action when a foreign military invaded its territory, leave alone bombing its towns?
The UN Security Council Resolution 1559, of September 2004 calling for the disbanding of Hezbollah’s fighting force and the extension of Lebanese government control over the entire country, goes to establish and attest Hezbollah's true identity as a terrorist outfit.
Friday, August 4, 2006
Terrorist's Gambit
I was surprised at the cry of the international community and the media about the 'disproportionate use of force' by the Israeli Defense Force against the Hezbollah militants. Not that I want to take a pro-Israel stand but to point out the fallacy in such a cry.
Who determines that which among any two warring parties has the prerogative to first strike and use force of whatever kind against the other. Isn't the one who first uses force (of any kind) against the other already guilty of using disproportionate force. Or is he not?
And on what grounds can anyone offer advise to the affected party to retaliate only with a force similar and proportionate to the one it was inflicted with. Isn't that plain bankruptcy of reasoning and biased judgment?
I came across an article "Defending A people" by Alan M. Dershowitz that appeared in the editorial page of Hindustan Times, August 4, 2006. Alan Dershowitz is a Professor of Law at Harvard and the author of Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways. I am putting some excerpts that I find quiet insightful from his article.
Who determines that which among any two warring parties has the prerogative to first strike and use force of whatever kind against the other. Isn't the one who first uses force (of any kind) against the other already guilty of using disproportionate force. Or is he not?
And on what grounds can anyone offer advise to the affected party to retaliate only with a force similar and proportionate to the one it was inflicted with. Isn't that plain bankruptcy of reasoning and biased judgment?
I came across an article "Defending A people" by Alan M. Dershowitz that appeared in the editorial page of Hindustan Times, August 4, 2006. Alan Dershowitz is a Professor of Law at Harvard and the author of Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways. I am putting some excerpts that I find quiet insightful from his article.
The Hezbollah and Hamas’ provocations against Israel once again demonstrate how terrorists exploit human rights and the media in their attacks on democracies. By hiding behind their own civilians, the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians (emphasis mine). This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option, and the terrorists with a win-win option.
...the international community, the media and the so-called ‘human rights’ organizations (emphasis mine) could stop falling for this terrorist gambit and acknowledge that they are being used to promote the terrorist agenda. Whenever a democracy is presented with the lose-lose option and chooses to defend its citizens by going after terrorists who are hiding among civilians, this trio of predictable condemners can be counted on by the terrorists to accuse the democracy of ‘over-reaction’, ‘disproportionality’ and ‘violations of human rights’. In doing so they play right into the terrorists’ hands...
Israel has every self-interest in minimising civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists have every self-interest in maximising the same — on both sides. Israel should not be condemned for doing what every democracy would and should do: taking every reasonable military step to stop the terrorists from killing their innocent civilians.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Talk God's Non-existence!!! Stupid Arrogance
Does Man have the necessary qualification to talk anything conclusively about God?
Just ask this question, "How much does a man know about all there is to know in this VISIBLE world and universe?"
How much does any one individual know of all that is already discovered and document by mankind. Mind you, we are talking about all that is already known to mankind.
All that is already discovered and documented in all the volumes and encyclopedias, be it about the human body, be it about the living creatures: mammals, reptiles, birds, insects and the species of each of them, be it the vegetation: the flora and fauna, the oceans, rivers, lakes, glaciers and their different behaviors, be it the atmosphere and its various behaviors, be it all kinds of elements with their physical and chemical properties, be it the properties of sound, light, be it about astronomy (it is estimated that there are over hundred million Galaxies), be it about all kinds of viruses and bacterias, are too exhaustive for any single individual to claim being an authority.
Even an individual who may specialize in any of the above subjects may have only a miniscule and limited knowledge of that area of specialization. How credible then is Man to talk about matters that are not seen.
Isn't it daring then for any man to comment about the non-existence of God whom he has not seen? All that a man can credibly do is to simply air his vague views and hypothesis.
God is best understood through faith in his existence and relationship with him in faith. A Man can surely believe in God with all of his faith, and that would be the right thing to do, than trying to define God conclusively, of whom he knows not an iota. For that Man has to first humble himself in the realisation that he doesn't know enough.
Just ask this question, "How much does a man know about all there is to know in this VISIBLE world and universe?"
How much does any one individual know of all that is already discovered and document by mankind. Mind you, we are talking about all that is already known to mankind.
All that is already discovered and documented in all the volumes and encyclopedias, be it about the human body, be it about the living creatures: mammals, reptiles, birds, insects and the species of each of them, be it the vegetation: the flora and fauna, the oceans, rivers, lakes, glaciers and their different behaviors, be it the atmosphere and its various behaviors, be it all kinds of elements with their physical and chemical properties, be it the properties of sound, light, be it about astronomy (it is estimated that there are over hundred million Galaxies), be it about all kinds of viruses and bacterias, are too exhaustive for any single individual to claim being an authority.
Even an individual who may specialize in any of the above subjects may have only a miniscule and limited knowledge of that area of specialization. How credible then is Man to talk about matters that are not seen.
Isn't it daring then for any man to comment about the non-existence of God whom he has not seen? All that a man can credibly do is to simply air his vague views and hypothesis.
God is best understood through faith in his existence and relationship with him in faith. A Man can surely believe in God with all of his faith, and that would be the right thing to do, than trying to define God conclusively, of whom he knows not an iota. For that Man has to first humble himself in the realisation that he doesn't know enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
