This post is a reply to John of Arab News, who added a comment to my “Echoes of Neville Chamberlain” post.
As promised, here’s my reply to your comment. I begin with some facts:
- On May 17, 2000, Israeli troops in southern Lebanon began evacuating their outposts in preparation for an overall pullout from the area by July. Six days later, the last remaining Israeli troops and pro-Israeli militias completed their withdrawal.
- Subsequent to the Israeli withdrawal and before the issuance of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 on September 2, 2004, Hezbollah attacked Israeli forces on 30 occasions.
- Resolution 1559 (1) called for “the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon; (2) called upon “all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon; (3) called for “the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias; and (4) supported “the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory.”
- Resolution 1559 notwithstanding, Hezbollah has remained in control of southern Lebanon and continued attacking the Israeli military. Israel’s attack on Lebanon followed Hezbollah’s incursion into Israel on July 12.
In your comment, you ask how Hezbollah’s taking hostage of two or three Israeli soldiers justify Israel’s actions, and you correctly note that the Lebanese government doesn’t control Hezbollah.
The facts show that Israel’s actions are not a response to the July 12 incident; rather, they are Israel’s reply to a lengthy list of incidents stretching back six years. Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon did not satisfy Hezbollah; instead, Hezbollah saw the withdrawal as a sign of weakness that could be exploited.
Subsequent to the passage of Resolution 1559, Hezbollah, in violation of the terms of the Resolution, has neither been disbanded nor disarmed and has remained in control of southern Lebanon. The Lebanese government has not even attempted to enforce the Resolution’s terms; it has been an accessory to Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel.
Later in your comment, you address the issue of proportionality by saying that President Bush is telling Hezbollah to lay down its arms, while Israel is using excessive force.
It is obviously difficult to define the meaning of “proportional force” in a confrontation between a state and a non-state actor. But let us assume that such a definition could be decided upon. What would be the result? Whatever the definition, it would not result in a permanent cessation of attacks on Israel by Hezbollah (or Hamas). If the level of violence employed by Israel were no greater than that of Hezbollah, history—most importantly, history since Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000—shows that Hezbollah would regroup and resume its attacks. The only hope of terminating the “cycle of violence” is to terminate Hezbollah’s ability to regroup. A draw between Israel and Hezbollah—or any of Israel’s other enemies—won’t end the cycle of violence. Peace will come when one side or the other wins.
You also ask whether the neocons “have enough influence to convince the American people that Israel’s war is the USA’s war also.”
Israel’s enemies—Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas—are our enemies. Iran, the ringleader and an avowed enemy of America, uses Syria as a transit point for arms shipments to Hezbollah and has provided arms to Hamas.
While Israel and the U.S. have common enemies, I neither expect nor favor the intervention of our military in “Israel’s war.” We have never fought side-by-side with the Israelis. What we have done is to provide military supplies; should circumstances warrant, we will undoubtedly do so again.
It is true, as you say, that no American politican has complained that Israel is using excessive force. But before concluding that this is the result of the “Jewish lobby,” you need to consider that the same can be said for the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Arab countries. Yesterday, the AP reported that
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal called Hezbollah’s actions unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible,” telling his counterparts: “These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them.” Supporting his stance were representatives of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain . . .
I doubt that any of these countries have Jewish lobbies.
Isn’t all this sounding awfully familiar? The usual suspects are making their same arguments against this military action as they did in opposing the liberation of Iraq. Why, after everything that has happened since 9-11, are we still asked to persuade people that Islamists are our enemies?
The better question is why are “non-Neocons” believing this war is not our own? Our fight since declared after 9/11 was against radical Islam. Hezbollah and Hamas are State Department designated terrorist groups funded by the state sponsors of terrorism in Syria and Iran. If we connect Syria and Iran to the actions of at least Hezbollah, and since both nations are proud of their support for Hezbollah this isn’t even a question, this war is our war.
Marc, you bring up a good point. If John doesn’t understand this is a larger war than just a typical Arab/Israeli war, why have many Arab nations sided with Israel in condemning the actions outright of Hezbollah? It is fairly obvious given the Middle Eastern nations who have expressed this condemnation that they see heavy Iranian involvement. Are the leaders of those nations mentioned and a couple of others not listed run by neocons?
In John’s comment to the Chamberlain post, he advocated negotiations. But aren’t Hezbollah intentions reflected by al-Manar TV, and doesn’t its programming cast some doubt on the good faith one needs for negotiations? The European press has covered some of this programming, especially a very popular series that served up all the “Protocols” clichees about Jews.
You cannot spew this garbage throughout the world and expect people to believe you are fighting for limited just causes.
The question of proportionality is particularly vexing.
When Israel bombs legitimate targets—even if there are no civiliam casulties, we hear the proportionality argument: why respond to a simple rocket attack with overwhelming force.
If Israel then targets individuals responsible for attacking Israel, that is condemned as an assination or targeted killing.
When it comes to Israel, there simply is no acceptable response for much of the world.
Israel could send Woody Allen to negotiate with Hezbollah and the world would call that disproportionate. Then again, having to sit down and listen to Allen do his routine would be inhumane.
The whole situation reminds me of one of Allen’s jokes, about a man complaining about his neighbor who thinks he’s a chicken. When asked why he doesn’t do something about it, he replies that he needed the eggs.
I imagine Hamas and Hezbollah approaching the elites from all over the Arab world, complaining of the decades of injustice suffered at the hands of the Jews and begging for the Arab World to intervene. The other Arab autocrats and sheiks sympathize, of course but decline to take any action. When Hamas and Hezbollah point out that 300 million Arabs should be able to destroy a tiny country of only 7 million, the other Arabs agree except they can’t destroy Israel. They need the distraction.
That’s my answer to solving this crisis. Send in Woody Allen. What? The EU is already sending someone, you say. Same thing.
Israel has officially called the Hezbolla acts of aggression, acts of war. It has thus recognized a state of war. Calls for proportionality are absurd given this fact. The government of Israel has a responsability to it’s citizens to win the war at minimal cost in loss of life to ITS CITIZENS.
Why on earth would Israel respond “proportionaly” when this has been historicaly proven to prolong conflict and maximize loss of Israeli lives.
Why would the USA be remotely interested in aiding a terrorist org. that has claimed hundreds of American lives, at the expense of a proven friend?
Hezbollah started the war and can end it by laying down arms (as per UN resolution 1559)and returning the two hostages. If they do not, Israel has the responsability to win the war their enemies began.
If the war expands into Syria and even Iran, other than the temporary resulting spike in oil prices, so what? It will bring a long overdue cleaning out of a festering sore.
Peace is only possible when both sides desire it. Hamas and Hezbollah are dedicated to the extiction of Israel and Syria and Iran are obvious supporters to this cause. What perversion of logic would lead Israel to retreat at the very moment when they have the means, will and international backing to devastate those who wish to destroy them? acting “proportionally” would be suicidal, as well as a betrayal of its responsabilities to its citizens.