I’d like to say that posting about this tears me up, because I know how sensitive the issue is. I’ve been encouraged and relieved by the passionate but mostly civil debate of this subject here at BMG.
There are some obvious meta-straw men in the Phoenix article, couched in phrases like this:
“For some bizarre reason, in thoughtful company, in advanced intellectual circles, it is considered impolite and impolitic to recognize this reality.”
Gosh, that’s a pretty vague insinuation, isn’t it? “Polite” people aren’t acknowledging that Hezbollah are terrorists? I must not move in such “advanced intellectual circles.”
You see this kind of thing all the time:
1. The “some have said” straw-man argument: positing an indefensible or barely-defensible viewpoint and tearing it down, and
2. implication of bias or animus for those who disagree — classic ad hominem argumentation. Dershowitz does it (raising the “double standards” flag, as if we expect nothing more from civilized states — Israel or the US, for that matter — than from terrorists); Aravosis does it — see the last line. It’s a poisonous and solipsistic way to argue: if you can impugn someone else’s good faith, why address their arguments at all, or re-examine your own beliefs? I recognize it well from my days dealing with the PC-niks in college. Again, I’m grateful we’ve seen very little of that at BMG.
So I’ll just say straight-up why I’m discussing (thereby emphasizing) Israel’s and the US’s reactions to Hezbollah:
1. It goes without saying that Hezbollah are terrorists. Their raison d’etre is not to “defeat Israel” — at least not immediately — but to create war and death. I cannot imagine how questioning Israel’s strategy adds up to an endorsement of Hezbollah. That’s a false choice.
2. There have been roughly ten times as many Lebanese civilian dead as Israeli. I don’t think that Lebanese lives are worth one-tenth that of Israelis.
3. I live in America. Supposedly I have some influence as a voter over what we do. America holds considerable sway with Israel. What Israel does affects America. I don’t have any sway with Hezbollah. Therefore I will try to affect the side I think I can.
So, I’d still like to know if any of our elected officials who signed on to a statement supporting Israel’s right to self-defense have anything to say about civilian deaths; the wholesale flattening of Lebanon; whether they support an immediate cease-fire; whether they think Bush and Condi have been doing enough; or how this bodes for the future of the Middle East and the US. I’ve been impressed at the full and free account that our media outlets have been giving, covering both sides pretty equally, to my view; but the rhetoric from our leaders, Republican and Democratic, has been lockstep with the administration. Even Ned Lamont parroted Condi Rice on the radio last week. Anyone got a different idea?
Allow an ignorant American to pontificate about the Israeli psychology…
<
p>
More suicide bombers and rockets are the least of Israel’s worries right now. What they’re afraid of is annihilation. They see Ahmadinejad looking for a nuke, and the US tied down in Iraq, and they’re more than a little concerned over the basics of survival in a small nation with a long, hostile borderline.
<
p>
In a word, what looks from Massachusetts like Israel stoking the terrorist fires, is in their minds, Israel deterring Iran and co. from large-scale attack.
<
p>
You can second-guess the logic from there all you want, but it’s not a fun position to be in.
Are they being effective, to your mind? It sure as hell doesn’t look that way to me.
It’s impossible for me to say. It’s probably impossible for anyone to say. So much in the Middle East depends on public opinion, and momentum (the “Arab street”) rather than analysis. Assuming (as I do) that Israel is engaging in a show of strength to deter more serious attacks; it still won’t necessarily work. Based on reading about the 1967 war, I get the impression that foreign governments will base a decision to attack on whether they think they will benefit politically; not whether they think they will win. (i.e. they might be defeated in a confrontation with Israel, blame it on American intervention, and still come out ahead in their own countries.)
<
p>
So it’s a fine line to walk. I think they have been effective, yes, but it’s been tougher going than they wanted. Israel has to get a victory here, and they don’t have it yet.
No, it doesn’t go without saying that Hezbollah are terrorists. I know many people who don’t know the difference between any of the terrorist organizations or could name them. It’s probably also a safe bet that you can find people on the street who don’t know the difference even between a Sunni and a Shiite. So, it’s important to keep that point highlighted.
<
p>
Second, it is true that there are more Lebanese civilians killed in this conflict sofar than Israelis. But while we ought to hold Israel, as a Democracy and modern nation, to a high standard when it comes to this conflict, we should also understand the standards they hold themselves to. Israel’s standard is protecting their civilians, not hiding behind them. And they have the means to do so, and they have some of the best hospitals in the entire region. It’s a false comparison to look at total lives killed on one side contrasted to the other. That’s not how we do or should measure this conflict.
<
p>
And finally, I agree with your last point about how we as Americans should be involved because it does effect us.
<
p>
Finally, I’d like to know what Israel’s options are. How do they create peace at this juncture with the cards they’ve been given? Their strongest ally, America, is pretty much despised in foreign relations and mired in it’s own occupation in Iraq. The possibility of a cease-fire seems remote because there is no guarentee that Hezbollah won’t start lobbing more bombs into Haifa and the northern area. Going forward, however, with attacks always creates civilian deaths, so they try to be as targeted as possible. I just don’t know exactly what they can do to bring about peace at this point.
There are no good options. There are never good options in that neighborhood. There is only total war and somewhat less-than-total war, i.e. cease-fire. So, I’d take the cease-fire, try to rebuild and support a stable Lebanese state (which they should have done before), and try to root out the terrorists from within the culture in which they operate. All of these things have been made incalculably harder by its military actions, of course. But I sure don’t see the total war strategy doing anything positive.
I don’t think you’ll find anybody on this forum saying that we don’t want peace and don’t want a cease-fire.
<
p>
My question is what are Israel’s options to get to that point? How can they get to the point where they can step down their attacks? There’s a real threat, a political threat, and I would also add a psychological block on creating that peace.
<
p>
Israel needs some assurance that if it steps down its attacks it won’t be attacked. Prime Minister Olmert needs to be sure that if he does step down the right-wing of Israel, and for that matter the rest of the country as well, won’t see him as weak in one of the most important times to be strong. More, I think there is psychological block on the part of most Israelis — they don’t see peace as an option at this juncture, and are trained since birth to defend themselves no matter the condition.
<
p>
Again, what are their options?