SHOULD THE US BE ENTIRELY NEUTRAL BETWEEN ISRAEL AND HEZBOLLAH?

user ballots

political :

SHOULD THE US BE ENTIRELY NEUTRAL BETWEEN ISRAEL AND HEZBOLLAH?


[+] serious ballot by xxxxxxxx
created Thu Aug 03, 06

Yes
No


Ballot #98986 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM
smile bank:









similiar ballots:
97529. Why do Hamas and Hezbollah keep attacking Israel? And...
99377. Why can't hezbollah live in peace with Israel?
99378. Is the conflict between hezbollah and israel more signifcant than . . .
100157. Lebanon to consider helping israel against hezbollah
100410. Why can't hezbollah just live in peace with Israel? #2
100984. Hezbollah vs. Israel. Who killed more civilians?
101076. Should the UN let Israel know when hezbollah stores weapons. . .
100249. Was it Israel or Hezbollah that started this current conflict?
97553. "Israel should have given Lebanon more time to confront Hezbollah" Agree?
101073. Should the U.S.expect that Iraq will recognize Israel and reject Hezbollah?


COMMENTS:
Voted : No
I would say probably not.

There is a general rheotric going around that the US 'should' be neutral between the two. However, shouldn't several factors be taken into account? Such as:

a) Hezbollah started the conflict

b) Israel is a nation-state whereas Hezbollah is a non-state organisation (to elaborate on this point, it is perceived as 'normal' for a third negotiating party in similar sort of conflicts to give preference to the nation-state over the non-state actor. For example, the Norwegians have been active as a negotiator over the conflict in Sri Lanka- they have been most of the time arguable giving more favour to the Sri Lankan nation-state over the non-state actor- the Tamil Tigers.
by xxxxxxxx on Thu Aug 03, 06 7:44am [+]

Tough question.

The conflict has been going on for decades with both sides having more than their share of transgressions -- seeking to afix an arbitrary start point in order to say So-and-So is to blame is just a way to rationalize taking sides.

On one hand, there is no problem in being an ally. HOWEVER, we have to maintain some degree of objectivity and fairness if we are to be seen as legitimate brokers.

IMO, a policy of "Our allies, right or wrong" diminishes us, in the end.
by Cathexis on Thu Aug 03, 06 7:47am [+]

Plus, there is the question of "Do you want to be 'right?' Or do you want to be effective?"
by Cathexis on Thu Aug 03, 06 7:48am [+]

Voted : No
No because Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and if America treated them as Israel's equal we ineffect would be legitimizing them.
by Corrupt on Thu Aug 03, 06 7:50am [+]

At the very least, the U.S. should not simply be taking direct orders from Israel, and negotiating solely on Israel's behalf.
by cranky on Thu Aug 03, 06 8:16am [+]

^We are not taking direct orders from Israel we are just respecting their sovereignty and allowing them to defend themselves.
by Corrupt on Thu Aug 03, 06 8:22am [+]

Cathexis- Historical factors?

Israel withdrew from all of Lebanon. Hezbollah's claims at the time were false, as the land Hezbollah was claiming for Lebanon that was occupied by Israel is actually Syrian territory.

Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon. Then Hezbollah was the one that made an incursion across the border disrupting the peace process, wasn't it?
by xxxxxxxx on Thu Aug 03, 06 8:28am [+]

"We are not taking direct orders from Israel we are just respecting their sovereignty and allowing them to defend themselves."

Oh, that's what it's called.
by _Beelzebubba on Thu Aug 03, 06 8:57am [+]

Oh, I also doubt that the USA, the sole superpower, is taking orders from little Israel... honestly.
by xxxxxxxx on Thu Aug 03, 06 9:00am [+]

Voted : No
"tough question" by cathexis. Of all the weasels I have seen you post, this one takes the cake.

Hezbollah and its allied groups have been responsible for the hijacking the Achille Lauro, dumping wheelchair bound Leon Klinghoffer overboard, kidnappiing and torturing to death U.S. Marine Colonel William R. Higgins and the CIA station chief in Beirut, William Francis Buckley, and have kidnapped around 30 other Westerners between 1982 and 1992, including U.S. journalist Terry Anderson, British journalist John McCarthy, the Archbishop of Canterbury's special envoy Terry Waite and Irish citizen Brian Keenan. Hezbollah was also responsible for the April 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 63; of being behind the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, a suicide truck bombing that killed 241 U.S. marines in their barracks in Beirut in October 1983; of bombing the replacement U.S. Embassy in East Beirut on September 20, 1984, killing 20 Lebanese and two U.S. soldiers; and of carrying out the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome. During which they beat and shot American Navy diver, Robert Stethem, and dumped his body out of the plane onto the tarmac.

They are also believed to have carried out two Argentine terrorist attacks in the early 1990s: the 1992 Israeli Embassy bombing in Buenos Aires, killing 29 people, and an attack two years later on a Jewish community center there, killing 85. Hezbollah denies these claims.


TOUGH CALL MY ASS.

On July 26, 1994, Eight days after the community center bombing, the Israeli Embassy in London was car bombed by two Palestinians. United Kingdom, Israel and Argentina blamed Hezbollah for the attack.
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Thu Aug 03, 06 10:29am [+]

NO. that is Switzerland's job. America is NOT neutral.
by Noblese_Oblige on Thu Aug 03, 06 7:12pm [+]

Hezbollah are terrorists which should be destroyed or disbanded. Israel is a nation which has given up much to attain peace. Most importantly, many say this war was started because two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped. It is so important to fully state the truth: two were kidnapped and eight were murdered in an invasion by Hezbollah terrorists.
by travistime on Mon Sep 18, 06 9:29pm [+]






About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | Contact
© 2002-2008 BestAndWorst.com All Rights Reserved