A ceasefire is not enough

TimSwift Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 12:26:25 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Compass has issued a statement criticising the Government for not calling for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.

Such a call is an understandable response to the continued media coverage and particularly to incidents like the reported attack on UN observers yesterday. But it is not enough.




A call for a ceasefire without further steps falls into the trap of treating Israel and Hezbollah on equal terms. Israel is a sovereign democratic states with the rights and duties of protecting it's citizens; Hezbollah is an illegal militia which has been allowed to operate within a state and which has a consistent record of threatening and targeting civilians.

Any lasting peace has to include measures which reduce the likelihood of the same conflict arising again. This must mean the disarming of Hezbollah as required under UN resolution 1559. If this is not achievable in the short term, then the alternative has to be a buffer zone with an independent security force; but this has to be linked to a commitment to build the Lebanese government to a state where it can tackle and remove armed militias within its own borders.

If Compass is to give 'direction for the democratic left', then it has to offer more than simply knee jerk condemnation of our government in responding to challenging and complex issues in the world.


tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
A ceasefire is not enough | 25 comments (25 topical)

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#1)

by JM on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 05:13:40 PM GMT

Tim - Concise and reasonable. If only all comments on the Middle East could be like this.

I agree with every word and it's difficult to think what to add. The one thing I would say is that if an independent force is inserted into Lebanon, I hope they are given sensible rules of engagement. The worst thing would be a toothless force (al la Srebrenica) that does nothing to facilitate the dismantling of Hezbollah.


Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#2)

by bobbysilby on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 06:13:12 PM GMT

I agree there needs to be a ceasefire but a ceasefire would mean Hezbollah would stop launching rockets and hand back those soilders, which is all Israel wants anyway. Somehow I think these calls for a ceasefire are just statements of the obvious.


Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#3)

by AJScobbie on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 07:03:11 PM GMT

"A call for a ceasefire without further steps falls into the trap of treating Israel and Hezbollah on equal terms"

One is a state that is armed to the teeth by US,UK et al and the other is a terrorist/resistance group that is armed to the teeth by Syria and Iran. There is blood and guilt on both sides of the conflict. All we can do here in the UK is let it be known that those of us on the progressive left condemn violence by both sides.

There is only one solution to this problem- a two state solution. The sooner we start to approach this issue as rational adults and third party observers, the more likely we are to fully understand the grievances on both sides.

This may be an oft used quote but I think its directness is something we should just all accept and move on.

"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" David Ben Gurion


Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#4)

by davidfloyd on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 10:07:12 PM GMT

"If Compass is to give 'direction for the democratic left', then it has to offer more than simply knee jerk condemnation of our government in responding to challenging and complex issues in the world."

Well, yeah, it does but I'm not clear what that's got to do with this statement which, in fact, endorses the views of Foreign Office Minister, Kim Howells.  

As far as I know, he's a member of the government.


Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#5)

by JM on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 10:16:00 PM GMT

It remains to be seen whether Kim Howells was speaking for the government or just going off on one.


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#6)

by doctordunc on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 11:27:10 PM GMT


I agree - you can't have equivalency on both sides of this conflict.  On one side you have a hugely armed regional superpower, a nuclear state, a state that enjoys the support of the world's wealthiest countries that is using the massive military arsenal at its command to crush a small struggling country, it's infrastructure and - most tragically of all - its people.  A state that has intelligence and technology to be able to strike 'surgically' and yet kills hundreds of civilians (as well as UN observers, etc.)  On the other side you have a reprehensible Islamist group who indiscriminantly wangs its missiles over the border not caring who it kills but neither represents nor controls the victims of Israel's bombardment.  Both 'sides' hold captives illegally taken.  In the current conflict, one side has killed hundreds and forcibly removed over half a million.  The other side has killed dozens (and each of those killings I of course condemn).  

An immediate ceasefire is essential, even if that ceasefire is unilateral by either side.  What is happenig cannot be allowed to continue and it is rank hypocrisy on the part of many to suggest that Israel can indefinitely continue this bombardment of a sovereign, democratic state until such time as it deems that it's objectives are met.  It must stop now.  There is no room for equivocation in such matters.


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#7)

by JM on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 11:46:05 PM GMT

Israel are not "crush a small struggling country" They are trying to crush a terrorist group that have taken refuge in a small struggling country. In the same way the the Allies were not trying to crush France on D-Day. They were trying to crush the German forces occupying France.

"An immediate ceasefire is essential, even if that ceasefire is unilateral by either side"
Why do I get the feeling that, if Israel put down their weapons but Hizbullah kept on sending rockets people would lose interest in the conflict but if Hizbullah put down their weapons and Isreal kept shelling there would be outrage.


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#8)

by doctordunc on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 12:19:59 AM GMT

Probably because of the sheer scale of the killing (approximately 10 to 1).  

Whatever Israel's intentions (and I for one find them hugely confusing - any suggestions for why they continued to shell the UN observation post after repeatedly being told what was happening and who they were shelling?) the effect is very clear: Hizbullah are reaping the benefits of this onslaught.  It is quite clear there is considerably more sympathy for the Hizbullah position in Lebanon today than two weeks ago. And that's hardly surprising.  I someone keeps saying that a country to your south is your enemy and you should resist them, your view that this is obscurantist nonsense can be quickly changed by day after day of relentless shelling, murder and forced mass migration.  

Would you have sanctioned Britain carrying out airstrikes against Dublin in the '70s and '80s?  Would you think such actions would weaken or strengthen the position of the IRA?


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#9)

by alexswanson on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 12:29:01 AM GMT

"Would you have sanctioned Britain carrying out airstrikes against Dublin in the '70s and '80s?"

Whilst I think that the attitude of successive Irish government's towards the IRA has been less than inspiringly heroic, I think it's fair to say that they would not have put up with the IRA storing and firing thousands of rockets across the border.


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#10)

by doctordunc on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 12:48:16 AM GMT


Can I conclude from that that you do hold the Lebonese government at least partly culpable for Hizbollah's attacks?  You accept that bombing Beiruit and the country's infrastructure is, then, a form of collective punishment?


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#12)

by JM on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 02:27:23 AM GMT

I believe that the Lebanese government, due to it's inability or unwillingness (I suspect the former is more true) to control all of it's territory, to the detriment of another nation, is partly culpable for the Hizbullah attacks OR it has, at least, forsaken it's right to be the sole policer of it's own territory (and Israel has gain the right to take over this right to remove a threat to itself).

Once this threat is removed or the Lebanese government becomes capable/willing to excercise it's duty to police its own territory or another institution like the UN takes over partial policing of Lebanese territory - Israel will lose that right.

I am unsure why this is 'collective punishment'?

Are you saying that, in any war, if a state acts after being attacked, any civilian deaths on the side that initially attacked can be classed as 'collective punishment'. I don't believe that to be true.


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#13)

by AJScobbie on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 04:29:45 AM GMT

"Are you saying that, in any war, if a state acts after being attacked, any civilian deaths on the side that initially attacked can be classed as 'collective punishment'"

No I dont think thats what being said here. However how can you possibly defend the wholesale destruction of factories, power plants, water plants, roads, bridges (mmm last I checked that can be deemed a war crime) and the air and sea ports?

These are a disproportionate response. There must have been a better way to puruse their legitimate right to recover their soldiers. Punishing an entire country is not the way of a legitimate democracy. As for the Irish analogy I seriously doubt any British Government of the last 30 years would have lashed out in the way that Israel has.


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#15)

by doctordunc on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 08:05:09 PM GMT


I'm not sure I'm aware of any government that controls all of its territory.


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#16)

by JM on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 08:25:37 PM GMT

That wasn't my point. I said that "the Lebanese government, due to it's inability or unwillingness (I suspect the former is more true) to control all of it's territory, to the detriment of another nation..."

If country A doesn't control all of it's territory, that's nobodies business until that failure effects other countries. After that, it becomes very much their business.


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#18)

by doctordunc on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 08:37:18 PM GMT


Would India be justified in bombing Pakistan?


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#20)

by JM on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 08:45:37 PM GMT

Because groups in Pakistani Kashmir fire rockets into India?


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#11)

by JM on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 02:17:42 AM GMT

The Dublin comparison is one I've heard rolled out again and again. The answer is:

If the IRA had launched rockets at the UK (whether that be the mainland or Northern Ireland)from Dublin in large numbers over a number of years. And if the Republic had, over a number of years had refused or been unable to do about anything about it then yes, the UK would have had the RIGHT to bomb IRA positions/amunition dumps in Dublin.

Clarifications:
The UK would have the right to do it. If you were claiming that what Israel is doing may be counterproductive (as opposed to immoral/unjustified) then that may be a different matter (time will tell).

If the Republic was unable to stop the rockets I would not support bombing if the asked the UK for assistance in disarming the IRA and genuinely accepted assistance (including UK intelligence, police and special forces in small numbers into the Republic)

This is the metaphor I'm using in the current conflict and nothing I've heard from anyone has convinced me that it is invalid.

The disproportionate numbers of innocent killed on each side has no effect on the morality of the issue. Virtually any war you could mention has had disproportionate casualities and a cursory glance at the figures shows that 'most casualties' is absolutely no guide to which side is/was right/just.


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#14)

by MatthewStiles on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 07:56:39 PM GMT

Before you get away with rewriting history, the Israeli attacks were in response to an ambush and capturing of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah.  The rocket attacks from Hezbollah were in retaliation for Israel's attack.  Neither are justified in my opinion.  There should be an immediate ceasefire on both sides.


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#17)

by JM on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 08:26:43 PM GMT

There have been Hizbullah rocket attacks on Israel for the last two years.


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#24)

by MatthewStiles on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 03:53:09 PM GMT

Can you give a source of evidence for this assertion? According to the journalist Johann Hari "Since the end of the occupation, Hezbollah had only fired across the border once, until Israel began its aerial bombardment last week. It was when the Israelis blew up Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, outraging the world."  
see http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=930


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#19)

by doctordunc on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 08:39:56 PM GMT

But would the UK have the right (or rather BE RIGHT) to bomb Dublin airport?  Roads, railways, bridges (let alone residential areas, ambulances, etc)?


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#21)

by JM on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 08:50:21 PM GMT

FINALLY we arrive at the real debate. Nothing to do with civilian casualties or proportionality.

My answer is - I don't know. I haven't come to a position on bombing of infrastructure and I haven't heard Israel's argument for it. There may be good reasons for stopping high ranking Hizbullah people from moving around via roads, railways and bridges. I'll have to see.

The residential areas - I think I'm right in saying that the Geneva Convention says that Hizbullah are culpable for civilian deaths if they place their bases in civilian areas.

Ambulances - not in my wildest dreams do I think that Israel is deliberately targetting ambulances taking wounded away/coming to help.


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#22)

by doctordunc on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 11:08:55 PM GMT


Neither do I - which I why I put them in parenthesis.  I do not believe they are deliberately targeted, but I hate the phrase 'collateral damage'.  People make a calculation about such things when they plan such action (just as our government/military planners did when discussing Iraq, etc.)


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#23)

by JM on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 12:15:13 AM GMT

I hate "collateral damage" as a phrase too - completely dehumanising.


[ Parent ]

Re: A ceasefire is not enough (#25)

by polo on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:19:42 PM GMT

f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 f9 f10 f11 f12 f13 f14 f15 f16 f17 f18 f19 f20 f21 f22 f23 f24 f25 f26 f27 f28 f29 f30 f31 f32


A ceasefire is not enough | 25 comments (25 topical)