Support Israel!

I have been trying to figure out how best to make a comment about the current situation in the Middle East. I am too tired to give too many defenses of what I feel is the obvious course of action for our nation (and for any nation that would live free). But a couple of days ago, a friend asked a question that I did attempt to answer, and since then I haven't found a better way of approaching the issue. So, here is his question (in italics) and here's my answer (in plain text).

Palestinians on T.V. and Americans at home are asking two questions:
1) What exactly constitutes the distinction between criminal, terrorist, and enemy soldier?

Criminals...that's a tricky question. A good definition of an illegal enemy combatant would be someone that did not recognize or fulfill any of the conditions that confer legal status to combatants. A good question to ask when deciding if someone is defined as a criminal and law breaker is: with regard to which legal issues? Its hard to use legal labels on people that contest the basis of various systems of laws. Technically, if they never agreed to enter into the legal contract, and their nation never agreed to enter into a legal contract and recognize certain common laws...are they criminals? Hard to say. They aren't breaking laws they have agreed (even tacitly) to adhere to. At a certain point, most people seem to say, whether you agree or not, there is a rule of law and operating outside of it constitutes an illegal action, and whether you recognize the power of that law or not matters very little.

Terrorists could be summarized as being non-conventional combatants that target non-combatants, if not solely, than at least primarily, with a variety of potential end goals. That said, there terrorists and then there are terrorists. Domestic terrorists work against their nation's governmental system--again, targeting in a deliberate fashion non-combatants. International terrorists work against other nation's governmental systems, usually apart from their own nation's forces and targeting non-combatants with their efforts.

I would note that this would eliminate the suggestion that Washington and crew fall into the category of "terrorists". Being *unrecognized* doesn't make you a terrorist...its attacking civilians that makes you a terrorist. Guerilla warfare is often associated with terrorism, because guerillas don't use conventional warfare...but I think there is a definite distinction between guerillas and terrorists.

Enemy soldiers are conventional soldiers of a state. I think the key term is soldier...to be a soldier implies actual enlistment in a formalized military. Generally they wear uniforms. Certainly their actions can be attributed to the decisions of the state.

I would classify members of al Qaeda and Hezbollah as terrorists. They operate primarily against civilians, with political aims as their end goal. They are not guerillas. They are not enemy soldiers. They are illegal combatants/criminals.

2) What are the roles and rules for American/coalition/Israeli forces operating against the combatants listed in question 1?

Well, our policy should be fairly straightforward. To not support Israel would be a disastrous back-flip in the face of serious confrontation of our official international policy, to say nothing of catering to what can only be considered terrorists whilst turning our backs on one of our staunch-est allies. The terrorists have as an end goal a plan that will launch the widest spread conflict since WWII. With Iranians and Syrians supporting the fighters in Lebanon, if Israel does what it is prepared to do, the entire Middle East becomes a shooting gallery. We must side with Israel, purposely and pre-emptively, so that everyone knows that we're ready to go to the mattresses over this. Appeasement will not avert disaster...stating clearly that we stand ready to go to war over Israel's right to defend itself from terrorists just might though.

There's a lot in play with this situation. Our international policy, via the Bush doctrine, has shifted to one of pre-emptive intervention should the need arise to maintain our security and peace. A war in the Middle East constitutes a serious problem. More than that, I wonder how long any amount of meetings with French diplomats will prevent Iran from pushing the nuclear envelope if they are gearing up for an all out conflict with Israel, as the Iranian president has repeatedly stated he is ready and waiting to do.

China and Russia support Iran. N. Korea is hardly in need of an excuse to position itself against our allies. Pakistan doesn't like Israel, and they are also nuclear. Its no secret that the Middle East is only waiting for a spark to explode. It doesn't help that, even after Israel has withdrawn from the Gaza Strip and conceded quite a lot to people that use terrorism tactics, the attacks don't stop. Defenders of free societies should be united against anyone that stands against Israel right now.

As to your question about how to deal with terrorists and how they can be "brought to justice"...I would say this...terrorists can be captured and held accountable to the laws of the wider international community. More importantly, the states that complacently tolerate or encourage and actively sponsor terrorists can be held accountable to legal standards of the international community. I think more needs to be done than that, since the legal consequences of breaking the rules of the international community usually amount to sanctions...but it can be done. I think our approach to Afghanistan and Iraq is a great example of the way to handle nations with ties to terrorism. Both were handled legally, and we chose to use the resources available to us to see to it that the law was upheld (something most nations don't care to do...)