I admit that the escalating Israeli response in Gaza in the wake of the Shalit kidnapping was beginning to give me pause. It seemed a bit too furious, too extreme, compared to how Israel normally responds to such provocations. And the civilian casualty rate was beginning to rise at an alarming rate. This was when I first began to articulate my "snapped" hypothesis. Israel finally lost its temper with being forced to make constant concessions for no apparent change in its security or in Palestinian willingness to compromise. Basically, they unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, and the Hamas response was "hurray--more space to launch rockets from." The Lebanon war is an extension of this--Israel has withdrawn from Lebanese territory for years, yet there has been no noticable reduction in Hezbollah rocket strikes in northern Israel. The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers up there was the last straw.
Yossi Klein Halevi is calling this "the next Israeli war." Part of me is inclined to cheer. Not because I like war, but because the ambigiousness of this half-guerilla war between a state and a quasi-state is maddening. Wars have rules, which can be applied to the combatants. Kidnapping a soldier is, actually, a legitimate war act, but only if you treat him consistent with international law (rather than having them simply "disappear"). But of course, it is a war act, fully warranting a total military reprisal. This is one of the reasons I supported unilateral withdrawal. The hope, of course, is that with a state Palestinians would finally prevail upon themselves to make peace. But, barring that, Israel could say: "Okay, you're a state now, with all the responsibilties that entails. That means if you attack us, it's an act of war, and we're going to act accordingly. Consider yourself warned." As Halevi puts it:
For the Israeli right, this is the moment of "We told you so." The fact that the kidnappings and missile attacks have come from southern Lebanon and Gaza--precisely the areas from which Israel has unilaterally withdrawn--is proof, for right-wingers, of the bankruptcy of unilateralism. Yet the right has always misunderstood the meaning of unilateral withdrawal. Those of us who have supported unilateralism didn't expect a quiet border in return for our withdrawal but simply the creation of a border from which we could more vigorously defend ourselves, with greater domestic consensus and international understanding. The anticipated outcome, then, wasn't an illusory peace but a more effective way to fight the war. The question wasn't whether Hamas or Hezbollah would forswear aggression but whether Israel would act with appropriate vigor to their continued aggression.
So I do believe that this response is justified. I am torn as to whether it is wise or advisable. I do think it might be an over-reaction, perhaps not in the long-term interests of the state, possibly disproportionate to the crime that occured. But what am I to say? As David Bernstein points out, imagine how France would respond if a neighboring country started kidnapping its soldiers and lobbing missiles across the border. American relations with Mexico would take a definitive turn for the worse if our neighbors began shelling El Paso.
This is the essential paradox of being an Israel supporter. It is so difficult to hold the line between what is just and what is wise. Because of the torrent of critiques asserted that Israel is fundamentally unjust, a "colonial" state, where Olmert = Hitler, we feel compelled to be vigorous in our defense, and we'd rather die than make common cause with those who think the existence of a Jewish state is a grave affront to the international order. We close ranks because the type of people who are saying "what Israel is doing is wrong" tend to phrase it as a proof of Israel's immorality, not of it's human fallability. I want to be able to say that Israel's actions are a poor but still justified decision, but there is no way to say that without giving fodder to those who would rather see the state not exist at all.
I haven't been following this closely for a long time, but it does seem that Israel is overreacting (though some reaction was probably necessary, but this looks like full-scale war). Israel does get more than its fair share of shit, and the Palestinian leadership and Hezbollah definitely act in the interests of foreign Arab/Persian elites rather than in the interests of the Palestinian people (i.e. towards a peaceful resolution), but that doesn't mean that Israel doesn't cause a lot of suffering too and that they shouldn't be blamed at all when their excesses bring condemnation.
ReplyDeleteThe kidnappings and rockets are acts of war (or something very similar) and you're right that no country would tolerate that for long. I wish the Palestinian leadership would get their heads out of their collective ass and realize that these sorts of attacks hurt both sides. I wish that the Israelis would find a way of dealing with all this more humanely.
The whole situation sucks.
One can certainly understand why Israel would declare this an act of war. War can be revved up to full tilt boogie - until the enemy is destroyed or subdued. War can mean "we will annihilate you" and seem more 'reasonable' than striking back at a bunch of cowardly terrorists. Trying to reason and compromise has indeed only given more opportunity for the terrorists to grab Israelis and demand exchange for hoardes of their fellow terrorists in Israeli prisons. The terrorists know that Israel values every life, while the terrorists don't value life at all. The women wail and moan and carry on about their losses - then they encourage their teens to strap themselves with dynamite and blow themselves up to take out Israeli civilians - that's really caring for your children. These people celebrate when evil is perpetrated. Who needs them? What are they doing for the world? They only want to take. They maim and kill and they think they are 'holy'. Insane is what they are.
ReplyDeleteI think "unwise" is hugely understating the situation. And I would say, in no uncertain terms, that the invasion of Lebanon is unjust. I posted an initial reaction on my journal this morning. I'm not linking it as it's more of a shocked and frustrated rant then a coherent argument, but you know how to find it if your curious. Anyway, my objections to your logic in the post are numerous.
ReplyDelete1) I think your underplaying the situation in Gaza. The kidnapping of Shalit is inexcusable, that's for sure, and I think that every conscientious Palestinian should be protesting for his release. However, I think that Isreal's response has been equally inexcusable.
a) First, the fact that Israel has an fairly lousy track record with detention of Palesitians and their due process rights (say, last weeks rather arbitrary round-up of select Palestinian statements suspected of terrorism), I think a tanks-planes-and-troops invasion is terribly disproportionate to the kidnapping of two soldiers.
b) The tactics employed by Israel are either (i) incredibly stupid or (ii) criminally callous. The bombing of the main Gaza power plant is a perfect example. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060701/ts_nm/mideast_gaza_usa_dc_1) Trash is piling up, water purification resources are dwindling along iwth food supplies, hospitals scarcely function. What was Israel thinking?
(i) Israel states that they consciously targeted the station "in order to disrupt the activities of the terror infrastructure involved directly and indirectly in the abduction of Corporal Shalit." However, they add that ""precautions were taken so that civilians would not be harmed as a direct result of the attack." What precuations? Being kind enough to destroy transformers rather than the whole thing? Did they think that they could somehow destroy "terrorist infrastructure" without destroying "civilian infrastructure"? How could such a vital target be attacked without major repercussions for Palestinian civilians?
(ii) The only other option (which I think is much more realistic) is that Israel fully comprehended the consequences and struck anyway. The suffering that has been inflicted over a single person is absurd.
(2) Your equation of the situation in Lebanon as mre "extension" seems to deny a lot of important differences.
(i) Hezbollah, unlike Hamas' very clear position of authority in Palestine, is only one party among many in Lebanon (where its popualarity is linked to its provision of social services like schools and hospitals). Given the relative weakness and instability of Lebanon's government, the militantant wing of Hezbollah operates with near total autonomy in souther Lebanon. Hezbollah militance is much more underground than Hamas, and these attacks have not been endorsed by the Lebanese government. In fact, while critics may charge that the attempts have been half-hearted, Lebanon's sectarian groupss have tried to disarm militant members of Hezbollah.
(ii) From the above we can conclude: There is significantly less state and civilian conncection to militant Hezbollah in Lebanon than there is to militant Hamas in Palestine. In fact. Hezbollah recieves substantially more support from Syria than from Lebanon, and is significantly less popular and influential in Lebanon than in other parts of the Middle East.
That being established, we should note some significant problems with Israel's response.
(iii) The same callous regard to the civilian need for infrastructure as discussed above is in place. Targets have included the only international airport and blockades on the nation's waters. The logic supporting these claims is that these allow sources to terrorists. However, as above, Israel doesn't seem to think this style of assault neccisarily imposes externality on the civilians - but again, we are left with the question of in what possible way could the terrorists depend on these vital infrastructural features but not non-violent civlians?
(iv) The casualties have already reached 45 deaths and over 1000 wounded. Civilians. Only 2 Lebanese soldiers have been killed in Israel's assault. Despite the fact that there is SUBSTANTIALLY LESS CIVILIAN CULPABILITY than in Palestine (see 3i and 3ii) there is a huge willingess to impose suffering on civilians.
(3) I think another vital question remains: Is this effective? If Israel is willing to inflict deeath and destruction on civilians there had better damn well be a reason to believe it will work. One cannot justify a war of retaliaation or revenge alone. But:
(i) Given (from 2i) the substantial autonomy of Hezbollah and their claim that the kiidnapped have been moved far away, it is unclear what Lebanon can do to conjure up the kidnapped soldiers. They very well may be unable to have the soldier returned. Maybe they can do something. But that's the type of thing that ought to be negotiated, not "we're bombing until you figure it out, hope you come up with something".
(ii) The Israeli attack is creating fear and instability. Planes drop notices warnin of impending attack and demanding that Lebanese invade their homes. Thaere's some nice panic and hysteria right there. The diminshing of state infrastructure will only add to this. Are we to believe that these conditions - strain on an already strained government infrastrcture, panicked and scared civilians, a state of emergency - are going to somehow enable Lebanon to moderate Hezbollah MORE? Or that these condition sill be LESS CONDUCIVE to violence? You've got to be joking if you think so.
In the end we have civilians who have only limited culpability but are being callously made to suffer for undefinied benefits. In what possible moral calculus can you so off-handedly claim that is "just" if not "wise" when it is apparently enither?
YOur logic falls apart under any serious scrutiny. You say the "waract" justifies full military reation. But the war-act was committed by a non-state actor, and the full weight of the reprisal is being placed on civilians and the state. The actor who you want to pubish and the actors being made to suffer are entirely distinct. Your ethical calculus, then, is utterly incoherent. Moreover, I think there needs to be a probable benefit to the attack, not just "vengeance", and it has yet to be shown that such a benefit will emerge. In other words, war between a state and quasi-state, as you put it, may be challenging, but this is a war between a STATE (israel) and a non-state actor (hezbollah) that is being prosecuted against a state anyway (lebanon). Your point rests on a conflation of Lebanese civlians and government with Hezbollah that is not tenable.
The fact that you try and use the facts of the Palestine pull-out to jsutify the war on LEbanon is itself troubling, as though all anti-Israel Arabs blur into one indistinguishable mess. Who cares about the practical ramifications of the gaza pull-out? We're talking about LEBANON, where Israel hasn't had troops for years and hwich as been long recognized as its own state. The fact that your source admits to unilateralism as a means of diffusing criticism over Israel's disprortional retaliation rather than actually diffusing the need for such retaliation is troubling to say the least.
(4) Your paragraph using other nations as analogies is horribly reasoned.
(i) France's "neighboring country" would have to be a country (a state). Mexico is as well. Again the crucial distinction of forcing the citizenry to shoulder the retaliation for the actions of a non-state actor that they have little to no democratic control over is NOT ADDRESSED.
(ii) The fact that you concede Israel's "overraction" calls into question your reflexive pronouncement of justice. How can a response that is "just" (giving each their due?) be the same as a response that is describe as "overreacton" (giving more punishment than is due?). That's nonsensical.
(5) I think your final paragraph is probably the most unsettling and the most revealing here. The reason your forced into these logical contortions is rooted in your self-identification as an "Israel supporter". No such hting should exist. There should be no Israel supporters. Just as there should be no America supporters, no Palestine supporters, no China supporters, and no Mexico supporters. You should support INDIVIDUAL POLICIES, not entire nations. The position of pre-committing onself to support a regime's decisions can only result in bad rationalizations and the stifling of criticism. If you support "Israel existing" - fine. Me too. If you support "Israel prohibiting Palestinian marriage", I'd be in disagreement but that's still sensible because you can offer reasons why you support a policy like that. You cannot however, offer reasons why Israel occupies some existential or political space in which it's decisions are always just. You speak of the need to recognize fallibility, but you disavow that possibility when you say that you are an "Israel supporter" - you even admit that you are afraid to disclose your true opinion because it will provide "fodder" for those you disagree with! Your position should be one of analyzing facts and principles and reaching the most reasonable conclusion, not a prior commitment to a political outcome that stifles your pronouncements of what is just and what is not!
Israel is an actor in the world stage. Whether it is "moral" or "immoral" is not what needs to be discussed. We whould be concerned with critical inquiry into its individual actions and their morality or immorality. I think those who you criticze - who say Israel is somehow permanently immoral - are just as wrong as you. But your support for the existence of Israel should not lead you to be incapable of pronouncing any one of its policies to be immoral. As Aristotle said, "We are what we repeatedly do". Thus, if you want to ensure the "morality" of Israel, you ought to honestly criticize immoral actions of the state and encourage the pursuit of justice, rather than sticking to hard-line positions that have failed to yield security, peace, or justice for any of those involved.
Zinedine Zidane's ramming of Marco Materazzi was probably justified too -- AND WRONG. Ultimately, France LOST THE GAME.
ReplyDeleteTo begin justifying excessively violent overreactions leads to a slippery slope where "self-righteousness" is the only criteria required to engage in "criminal" behaviour.
As modern adults, we must condemn all actions committed with "blood lust".
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteYour lengthy post was thoughtful and thought-provoking but at the end of it I still had no clue what you think Israel should do to stop Hamas and Hezbollah from launching hundreds of rockets into Israel and launching military raids across the border to capture and kill Israeli soldiers.
If you have some solution that is demonstrably more likely to lead to the destruction of the extremist Palestinian groups, or at the very least, to their stopping the attacks, then let's hear it.
All the rest is irrelevant.
Note the utter lack of coverage in any Western media sources of the Lebanese government's response to Hezbollah's raid. Most Lebanese officials are surprised, saying Hezbollah acted alone without consulting any other members of Parliament. (This really isn't surprsing, considering the power of the Syrian-backed militant group that basically controls southern Lebanon thanks to the Syrian occupation).
ReplyDeleteHow does it make sense to hold a fragile state that lacks any control over Hezbollah responsible the militant's actions? What will decimating the state's infastructure and military do to help them put pressure on Hezbollah to lay down their arms and stop attacking across the southern border? Why does Israel think its good counter-terrorism policy to create failed states right next door?
re:DBL on Matthew's comment
I think the onus is on Israel and defenders of its current course of action to demonstrate how this is going to actually stop Hezbollah instead of further radicalizing Lebanon (which actually has its own interest vested in putting down Hezbollah but, given the weak state of its government, hasn't really been able to do anything about the group), and the justification ought to account for Israel's brutal tactics.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteWe've covered most of this ground in previous conversations. In general, I give more discretion between "unwise" and "unjust" (just like between "wrong" and "dumb"). I also mentioned previously how the terrorist tactic of integrating their military units in civilian areas makes them morally culpable for any civilian casualities/hardship that occurs in the retaliation. Were that not the rule, it would encourage exactly what Hamas and Hezbollah do: launch a persistent low-level guerilla war, hide their units in civilian regions, and thus make any response look excessive. Both Hezbollah and Hamas are experts at this--they penetrate the civilian establishment to deliberately blur the line between combatant and non-combatant, and to ensure that any Israeli reprisal harms as many civilian targets as possible. The damages are then used to wage a PR battle against Israeli brutality. I stand by my previous assertions that the only way to check against this behavior is to hold groups like Hezbollah and Hamas strictly liable for civilian casualties caused by their integration of civilian/military. These sorts of tactics put everyone (except the terrorists) in no-win situations, but I think it's wildly unfair to hold Israel accountable for being placed in a literally impossible situation. DBL has it right--you have to show some plausible and effective alternative response mechanism for Israel, otherwise you don't have jack.
Two points I do want to address. First, Matt's claim that one should not support nations, only policies. This displays enormous naivete. When the existence of a nation or group is subject for debate, then it is perfectly rational to say "I support Israel" (or Darfurians, or East Timorese). That isn't conveyed in supporting a "policy" ("existing" is not really an Israeli "policy" in the same sense as "unilateral withdrawal" or "tax breaks for Orthodox Jews" is). I support America, or France, or Argentina in the same sense, but it's moot in those cases because their existence is not questioned. Where there is such debate, then supporting a "nation" makes perfect sense, and I believe I conveyed that point in-post.
To Andrew, I disagree entirely with your placement of presumption. Israel was attacked in what clearly constitutes an act of war. That isn't seriously disputed. As long as they can display that their response is rationally related to the legitimate prosecution of war, and that they aren't violating any laws of war in the process, then the onus flips back to you on why the response is immoral (not just unwise, but...). I think the intelligence of a given decision is burden-neutral, but I think the question of its justifiability has the burden placed squarely on the instigating parties.
DBL -
ReplyDeleteI think this is a complex situation, so its hard to utline a definite strategy. I will however, make two general comments.
1) Violence of the sort Israel is employing should be, in my opinion, categorically rejected. I assume you disagree with me there. But you probably can at least grant that it is to be a last resort. Israel did not attempt any diplomatic negotiations with Lebanon, rather the immediate response to the kidnapping was invasion. Working with the Lebanese governemnt, who by all accou7nts was shocked and appaled by these attacks, may have yielded positive results. We will never know. In addition, any number of special operations could have been used for a more precise targeting. Instead, we see all international transit shut down and dozens of civilians murdered over a SINGLE soldier. That is irresponsible.
2) Secondly, you presume that the policy Israel implements now is actually effective. But more rocket attacks have been launched, not fewer. More structural instability means LESS capability for Lebanon to regualte Hezbollah, a task the feldgling democracy which is only now recovering from continuous occupation by Israel and Syria has attempted. Being that Israel response has MADE THE SITUATION WORSE, I can safely say "do nothing" would have beena better alternative.
David -
A) ON MORALITY
First, re-read my post if you need to. I'm not saying Israel's policy is "dumb". I am saying it is wrong. It is unjust in the fullest sense of the word.
Here's why. Your argument attempting to shift culpability to the terrorist groups is not only unresponsive to the argument I'm developing, but also morally bakrupt and devoid of any pragmatic benefit.
Every decision has moral ramifications. It is facile to say that "Hamas/Hezbollah and only Hamas/Hezbollah" bears the brunt of the blame for any causualties, because that is only one choice made in a series. Look at it like this:
1) Hezbollah chooses to kidnap an Israeli soldier. Unjust. No questions asked. We agree on this.
2) Israel now has to choose to respond they can:
i) do nothing
ii) negotiate
iii) bomb infrastructure and kill several dozen civilians
iv) bomb all of Lebanon to ash
The problem with your calculus is this - it would say that choices i-iv are all morally equivalent in relation to Israel. Since Israel is merely responding to the provocation of Hezbollah, it can't be morally wrong. You evacuate Israel's decision of any moral significance, even though certain policies are obviously worse than others. For discussion of alternatives, see my response to DBL. Israel's position is NOT impossible. It IS difficult, but that doesn't mean their decission is above reproach. To say otherwise is to insulate Israel from any moral critique - but that sems to be the rule of thumb for you when we have these debates anyway, so maybe its intentional.
To hit this argument home, take this example:
The US is prosecuting a war on terror (Crazy hypothetical, right?). We need information on where Osama is. We get a lead about the villiage where Osama grew up. We know he has visited recently, and suspect someone here knows where he went. We can get the information by (1) torturing the whole villiage, (2) narrowing down the suspects and only torturing them, (3) interrogating everyone without torture, (4) interrogating a few people, (5) wiretapping everyones phones, (6) wiretapping select phones.
Of these choices, (1) is inhumanly cruel and probably not even effective since we don't even get that much info (analgous to sya, bombing civlians and destablizing the very infrastucture needed to prosecute terorrists. Crazy hypothetical again, I know). (4) is pretty great. (3) is ok. (2) is sketchy, but still better than (1). And so on but DO YOU GET THE POINT? The decision made my the USA in this case would not simply pass into ethical inderminability, liek dividing infinity by zero! Certain responses are clearly more humane, more proportional, and more ethical than others! What good could it possibly due in guiding the policy of the US, if we refused to hold it culpable to the atrocity of option (1), or did not endorse the moderate route of option (3) or (4)?
HERE'S THE BIG QUESTION, DAVID: In what possible ethical schema can we say that a choice between a number of morally distinct choices is immune to critique simply because it is made in reaction to an unjsut action? Terror exists, David. And condemming it is easy. What's not easy is responding to it. The chief ethical and political question for Israel is not "is terror wrong?" The answer, trivially so, is YES. The ethical and political quandary for Israel is, rather, "GIVEN the existence of terror, what is the most ethical response to it? How can we confront evil while still respecting human dignity?" That is the question that is critical to an ehtical fight against terorrism, and that is the question that your analysis permanently forecloses.
Finally, David, I would point out that you respond to NONE of the anlysis on proprtionality and justice. This is crucial for two reasons.
1) If you concede Israel is "overreacting" - to harsh a punishment - then it is literally incoherent to say that the response is just - giving exactly due punishment. That is definitiuonally precluded. This is a simple concept, but your response seems to be that overreaction is auto-justified by virtue of the fact that it is a reaction!
2) Rered your OWN blogpost about using the law as a vehicle of outrage. Punishment has to fit crime. Here, Isreal is not only punishing brutally and disproportionately, but the pubishment is inflicted on people who had no effect on the crime! At the end of the day, its still Israeli soldiers that are killing Lebanese civilians who did nothing wrong. Maybe the terrorists counted on that, maybe not, but to say Israel's brutally over-the-top response is in no way ethically assailable is beyond absurdity.
B) ON NATIONALISM
I don't see why one's existence in peril changes ANY of my analysis. My point was that the morality or immorality of a nation is NOT a fixed trait. Only actions are moral or immoral, saying the nation itself is such a thing is only referent to actions it has taken, a figure of speech. Pre-committing oneself to the ethical
integrity of a nation, rather than scrutinizng its individual acts, makes critique impossible. And sure enough, you've rather explicitly disavowed the possiblity of holding Israel accountable for its hostile response.
But to the point, to say th eexistence of Israel is "up for debate" is again, a figure of speech. Yes, militants want it destroyed. Yes, it has many critics. Yes, it has powerful allies that endorse it. None of this is, however, a matter of debate. A normative resolution that Israel "ought to exist" or is exists "with legitimacy" does not change the fact of its existence. Insofar as there is Israel, the debate is temporarily settled: Israel exists. It is politics, not norms, that will decide the permanence of that existence. In effect, I am arguing that the existence of a state is not a moral category, (Israel is moral or immoral), but a political fact. When you say you support iSrael's existence, you ARE supporting an action - the action of the establishment and continuation of the Israeli nation and government. In what way is that not an action? Do not let this trick you into beleiving that you must attribute "morality" as a permanent quality of Israel.
Matt, we've tread this ground before, I tire of having to go over it again and again. I don't think something has to be exactly optimific in order to still be just. I'm more lenient on this than you are--this is something we've run circles on before, and this is the crux of our disagreement now. Going back to my post on punishment: I may think that the proper sentence for a crime is 2 years. If a judge gives 5 years, I may say it was unwise, or disproprotionate, but not necessarily unjust. 200 years, by contrast, would be unjust. Your standard has effectively been 2 years or bust--if the judge gives 2 years and a month, it's time to hunger strike (and moreover, it's "incoherent" not to agree!). I don't abide by that position. So with regards to Israel, I may think that some other response (for example, more limited retaliation) might be more just, but I'd save the moniker "unjust" for something that actually is unjust. Nuking the region and building a tower out of the skulls of one's enemies qualifies. Responding to an act of war by waging war within the laws of war doesn't, and you've done little to demonstrate otherwise. The category of "justified" is not exhausted by the single act "most just."
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, while I specifically limited my comment to a few choice issues, you didn't respond to even the points I did raise--that the presumption is with Israel and you have the burden of showing why its unjust as opposed to inadvisable or not "most just." So with your four options of Israeli responses, I think you have the obligation not just to state a preference, but explain why the particular one they pick is intrinsically bad. You could do it had they picked (iv), but again, I don't think responding to a war act with other legally permissible war acts qualifies, and you certainly don't show why. Your suggestion of negotiation is naive (Israel is obligated to negotiate with terrorists? Since when?), and historically doesn't and hasn't actually, you know, worked. Lebanon has not "by all accounts" been shocked and appalled--early reports had the Lebanese army expressing support for Hezbollah's actions. Of course, being subjected to a full military assault by a powerful army has the effect of causing contrition--but let's not overstate our case. Certainly, if the government felt that might be a fruitful avenue, then sure, go for it. But I don't think under the circumstances they are obligated to try it. And as a question of justifiablity (as opposed to wiseness) my standard of deference is significantly larger. You dodge the burden debate entirely, preferring to see the world in a Manichean world of Darkness and Light (only the Sith....).
As for the ridiculous semantic notion about what it means to "support Israel", I'll say nothing but that supporting Israel's existence is a normative claim and not just a question of fact when it's existence is not simply some academic question but challenged with bullets and rockets (were it not for the fact that non-state actors can be "allies", I'd be amused at the pluralization); and that registrations of support are always contextual--saying I support Israel in no way binds me to the more extreme aspects of their policies (or some future bout of insanity) than my support of "feminism" binds me to the feminist I read who advocated "political suppression of men," or your environmentalism links you to the bad guys in Rainbox Six. Cut me a break.
David -
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is an "agree to disagree" issue. I think that, should we accept your worldview, we severely cripple our ability to make ethical criticisms of injustice. Notably, you don't push the point that "terrorists are always fully culpable for any response to terror" - and I think that's good. There are many ways in which Israel can respond to terrorism, some inhumane, some reasonable, some just, some otherwise. It's foolish to assert that should Israel respond with a clear overreaction, it is ONLY the terrorists fault. You concede that this is true when youa dmit that we can make gradated judgments on various responses. That was my argument from the start - don't accuse me of Manicheanism, I don't think either of us are playing that game. All I'm saying is that a given point, an action has to be considered unjust. Yes, tha tpoint is subjective, but we can set up ethical criteria by which we determine it. Those ethical criteria are situationally applied, not universal, which means I get to take of the Vader helmet.
That being established, there's the question of WHY the invvasion of Lebanon is unjust (what you call 'the burden debate'). This has been pretty clearly developed in the last few posts, but I'll go over it again.
You assert that a plan doesn't have to be optomific to be just. I think in mnay cases that is true. But, to apply it in an instance when innocent people are being killed by Israeli bombs is the worst kind of callousness. Your advocacy boils down to this: "so maybe Israel could to this in a way
that killed a few less innocent people in their sleep, but its still apretty decent approach". When human lives are in play (civilians no less), I'd say there IS an ethical obligation to minimize the number of casualties by all possible means.
Civilians are dying. Dozens. Israel is killing them. People who have not endorsed Hezbollah, who have in may cases actively attempted to DISARM Hezbollah (despite being incapacitated in this effort due to an occupation by pro-Hezbollah Syria that ended LAST YEAR), and your advocacy seems to be, "Well, it could have been worse". Moreover, ports are being blocked, the airport demolisehd, the highway to Damscus ruined, people forced out of their homes - this is going to ruin so many lives.
Your view of the issue is disgustingly simplistic. To you, Israel is responding to an act of war with war tactics, so all is okay. But they are responding to an act of war committed by HEZBOLLAH by destorying the infrastructure of the LEBANESE government and murdering LEBANESE people. Your war analysis only makes sesne if post Pearl Harbor it would've been justified for the USA to bomb Australia. The retributive acts of war are not being paid onto the same actor who made the initial act of war. I really don't know how i can make that any more simple. You can't justify the invasion on grounds of martial retaliation, because the criminal is not the one being retaliated against.
This is why your judge analogy falls. For a legal case, we accept that there is a RANGE of acceptable outcomes that we will call just. Anything outside of it is unjust. This is also true for foreign policy. But while judicial priuson sentences are subjective because "one year" in addition to many years is not morally significant, killing innocent people is. That is a moral threshold that should not be crossed lightly. Moreover, we agree that proportionality is important - your "act of war" rhetoric is just muddying the water. We're talking about a nonstate actor kindpaiing a single soldier, for which a state and its civilians are being made to suffer enormously. That isn't just "unwise", its crazy.
That establishes why israel's response is "unjust".
On alternatives -
You're either willfully ignoring the points you don't like, or your just having a bad day with reading comprehension.
Negotioation - Read my post again, David. I NEVER advocated negotiating with terrorists. I adovcated negotiation WITH LEBANON to pursue terrorists. Yes, this is obligatory. Why? because even if you don't have an ethical objection to killing innocent people (scary?), you should at least concede that it is to be a LAST RESORT.
Moreover, neither you or DBL have refuted the argument I've made in EVERY SINGLE POST - that is there is no reason to beeive Israel's response is actually helping.
As the the USFG is pointing out, Lebanon is an unstable democracy that has been caught between terrorist violence and foreign occupations for years. It is already hard pressed to fight against the Syrian supported Hezbollah. Crippling the ste infrastructure only makes it harder for it to respond. Panic and instability only makes it easier for terrorists to mobilize. Killing people's families gives motivation to terrorists. It is highly probable that that this will only make the situation worse. The recent evidence suggests this is the case - more rockets are being launched at Israel, more Israelis have been wounded, rockets going further into Israel than ever before. Moreover, if we want to talk about historical probability of failure, Israel's entire history of hardline policies against Palestine have done nothing to alleviate the suffering of people in either state, nor have they decreased the power and influence of Hamas.
At the point where Israel's policy (a) didn't attempt a peaceful alternative, (b) is waging war against an actor distinct from the actor that engaged them, (c) is killing innocent people and crippling a democratic state, and (d) isn't proving any substantive benefit to pursuing this route of policy, I think its more than fair to say the action is not just. Refusing to condemn it as such doesn't denote a more complex worldview or a sophisticated philosophy, it just means your turning your back on state sponsored violence inflicted on innocent civilians. That is exactly why we condemn regimes that endorse and support terrorism in the first place.
Finally, on the "semantics" debate - maybe I misunderstood your orignal post. all I'm saying is this - we do not grant "moral" or "immoral" status to regimes, as they ar elittle more than a collection of statutes and policies. We can use the term figuratively, to give our general orientation ot the general state of those policies, but its just that, a figure of speech. Bear in mind, it was your words - not mine - that said your commitment ot the "morality" of Israel made it hard for you to critique this action as unjust. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying you morally support ISrael's existence, but that's not how the rhetoric came across in the initial post.
Oh yeah, and if you don't buy that the Lebanese response has been contrite, log on to CNN. Front page - Lebanon is acalling for a ceasefire. They aren't playing ideological games, they just don't want their country torn apart. Moreover, even the USA (Israel's only real ally) contends that Lebanon simply doesn't have the capability to quash Hezbollah in the South. Meanwhile, the civilian death toll climbs to 62.
ReplyDeleteAs a minor corrction, muy above psot should refer to a single kidnapping, not the kidnapping of a single person. The event was singular, but there were multiple victims of the violence.
If Lebanon doesn't have any control over Hezbollah, then there's probably no point in negotiating with them. If Lebanon does not have control over the southern part of the country, then they effectively are not the government in that part of the counrty. If Hezbollah has control of that area, and freely being able to shoot off rockets suggests they do, they are responsible for what goes on there.
ReplyDeleteTo bring up Pearl Harbor and Australia again, it would be like reacting to the bombing by sending a diplomat to Tasmania, meanwhile Japan keeps blowing stuff up.
Maybe in practice, Lebanon has no contrl over regions controlled by Hezbollah, but it is a part of their state. This is precisely where negotiations could have been helpful. For example, Israel could have provided aid to the Lebanese government to help find and disarm Hezbollah in a much more targetted and controlled fashion that would not disrupt (and terminate) civilian lives to such an extent.
ReplyDelete