The strikes are only pre-emptive if we put on white-nationalism glasses and take away Lebanon’s right to defend itself. Israel attacked Beirut first.
I guess as always with language, there are many possible interpretations. Yours is one, that’s right.
To me, it came somewhat surprising to see you connected “pre-emptive” to moral judgements, or to the question who attacked “first” (which is a controversial and potentially infinite topic to track the actual honest true ‘first’ origin).
Another interpretation is just military doctrine. The best defense is a good offense. Who cares who started the fight.
In this interpretation, the IDF felt there might be an attack incoming, and prevented it’s adversary from doing so by striking first.
Much like Hezbollah (or any other military force) would gladly pre-emptively strike their foe to protect their own troops. Doesn’t say anything about who started the overall conflict or even who’s right.
You still have a point; by highlighting the reasons behind the strike, and painting it as a protective measure, it probably makes it easier for the reader to sympathize.
A fair take by the newsmedia would have been to use the word “retaliatory” for Hezbollah’s attack just like they used “preemptive” for Israel’s.
Both attacks have causes, so if one is mentioning the causes for one set of attacks (which makes it seem less senseless) one should also mention the causes for the other set of attacks.
The manipulativeness here is not the use of “pre-emptive” for Israel’s attacks, it’s in the systematic framing of Israel’s attacks as having “a reason” (in this case pre-emption) whilst the other side’s attacks are portrayed without mentioning the reason and hence sound senseless to anybody less well informed.
What they’re doing here is called “spin” or “framing” and it’s a Propaganda technique meant to project a more favorable impression about one of the parties involved.
I’m not sure (take that literally, please) wether both causes deserve to be treated as equals, but I can very much vibe with the general spirit of your comment. That’s what I had in mind when writing the last paragraph of my previous comment.
You can turn that around as well, as the attack Hezbollah was retaliating for was, in itself, retaliatory. Only calling Hezbollah’s attack would imply that they were retailating for a first strike attack (which, as we know from the playground, is the difference between right and wrong).
The idea that each and every article, let alone the title, should encompass the entire conflict and, why not, the history of the Earth is very dumb and it just sounds like you want to see your own propaganda injected into what is basically normal and balanced journalism
In this interpretation, the IDF felt there might be an attack incoming, and prevented it’s adversary from doing so by striking first.
The idf assasinated top general Fuad Shukr in Beirut, far from the Lebanese border.
This is like if Hezbollah bombed Yoav Gallant in Tel Aviv. And then Hezbollah starts bombing israeli airports “pre-emptively” because “an israeli attack” (retaliation) is coming.
Hitting someone and then hitting them again because you expect them to hit back does not seem very " self defensy" or “pre-emptive” te me.
This is like if Hezbollah bombed Yoav Gallant in Tel Aviv. And then Hezbollah starts bombing israeli airports “pre-emptively” because “an israeli attack” (retaliation) is coming.
Yes, exactly. They had good reasons to assume the other side is angry and might do something violent, because they themselves just did something very violent to them! So to protect themselves, they deprive their opponents of means of retaliation. Pre-empting the retaliation.
Hitting someone and then hitting them again because you expect them to hit back does not seem very " self defensy" or “pre-emptive” te me.
I get you. I would totally agree if this was about a school dispute. However in war, there are a number of things which can be done in self defense or to pre-empt an enemy attack which might seem counterintuitive at first, like for example destroying your own infrastructure, or investing in weapons with the intent to never use them.
In war, an attacker can very well attack again to defend themselves and/or to pre-empt the enemy reaction.
If you could hire one of two generals to protect your country; one which considers pre-emptive follow-up attacks and one who would rather let the other side strike back because it seems fair, who would you hire?
Words like “defense” are used for israel. Words like “attack” are used for people defending themselves against israel.
This is because “defense” looks noble and “attack” looks violent and is associated with the aggressor of a conflict. Our media purposely chooses these words to subconsciously brainwash people. It is no coincidence these words are never swapped.
There’s a good reason the “ministry of War” is called the “ministry of Defense” now.
I guess as always with language, there are many possible interpretations. Yours is one, that’s right.
To me, it came somewhat surprising to see you connected “pre-emptive” to moral judgements, or to the question who attacked “first” (which is a controversial and potentially infinite topic to track the actual honest true ‘first’ origin).
Another interpretation is just military doctrine. The best defense is a good offense. Who cares who started the fight.
In this interpretation, the IDF felt there might be an attack incoming, and prevented it’s adversary from doing so by striking first.
Much like Hezbollah (or any other military force) would gladly pre-emptively strike their foe to protect their own troops. Doesn’t say anything about who started the overall conflict or even who’s right.
You still have a point; by highlighting the reasons behind the strike, and painting it as a protective measure, it probably makes it easier for the reader to sympathize.
A fair take by the newsmedia would have been to use the word “retaliatory” for Hezbollah’s attack just like they used “preemptive” for Israel’s.
Both attacks have causes, so if one is mentioning the causes for one set of attacks (which makes it seem less senseless) one should also mention the causes for the other set of attacks.
The manipulativeness here is not the use of “pre-emptive” for Israel’s attacks, it’s in the systematic framing of Israel’s attacks as having “a reason” (in this case pre-emption) whilst the other side’s attacks are portrayed without mentioning the reason and hence sound senseless to anybody less well informed.
What they’re doing here is called “spin” or “framing” and it’s a Propaganda technique meant to project a more favorable impression about one of the parties involved.
Quality comment, well said.
I’m not sure (take that literally, please) wether both causes deserve to be treated as equals, but I can very much vibe with the general spirit of your comment. That’s what I had in mind when writing the last paragraph of my previous comment.
You can turn that around as well, as the attack Hezbollah was retaliating for was, in itself, retaliatory. Only calling Hezbollah’s attack would imply that they were retailating for a first strike attack (which, as we know from the playground, is the difference between right and wrong).
The idea that each and every article, let alone the title, should encompass the entire conflict and, why not, the history of the Earth is very dumb and it just sounds like you want to see your own propaganda injected into what is basically normal and balanced journalism
Nice strawman you have there.
You sure did trash the argument I never made.
The idf assasinated top general Fuad Shukr in Beirut, far from the Lebanese border.
This is like if Hezbollah bombed Yoav Gallant in Tel Aviv. And then Hezbollah starts bombing israeli airports “pre-emptively” because “an israeli attack” (retaliation) is coming.
Hitting someone and then hitting them again because you expect them to hit back does not seem very " self defensy" or “pre-emptive” te me.
Yes, exactly. They had good reasons to assume the other side is angry and might do something violent, because they themselves just did something very violent to them! So to protect themselves, they deprive their opponents of means of retaliation. Pre-empting the retaliation.
I get you. I would totally agree if this was about a school dispute. However in war, there are a number of things which can be done in self defense or to pre-empt an enemy attack which might seem counterintuitive at first, like for example destroying your own infrastructure, or investing in weapons with the intent to never use them.
In war, an attacker can very well attack again to defend themselves and/or to pre-empt the enemy reaction.
If you could hire one of two generals to protect your country; one which considers pre-emptive follow-up attacks and one who would rather let the other side strike back because it seems fair, who would you hire?
Words like “defense” are used for israel. Words like “attack” are used for people defending themselves against israel.
This is because “defense” looks noble and “attack” looks violent and is associated with the aggressor of a conflict. Our media purposely chooses these words to subconsciously brainwash people. It is no coincidence these words are never swapped.
There’s a good reason the “ministry of War” is called the “ministry of Defense” now.
Of course these propaganda outlets also regularly make up lies for israel and let IDF soldiers write articles for them.