by von
Hilzoy writes (below) that "this has to stop" in Lebanon — that, whatever justifications Israel may have had going into Lebanon, they’re outweighed by the damage now being done to the nascent Lebanese democracy and to Lebanese civilians.
However, the fact the Hezbollah is wrong does not mean that Israel is right; nor does the fact that Hezbollah started this mean that anything Israel does as a result is OK. If someone attacks you, there’s a point at which your response crosses a line and stops being mere self-defense and becomes a horror of its own.
I actually agree that Israel’s quasi-invasion of Lebanon was probably a strategic mistake (and it’s not even clear, now, that it will be tactical success in the sense that it will significantly degrade Hizbollah’s war machine). I also respect Hilzoy a great deal. But I think that she misstates the issue, and that her prescription — STOP! — is the wrong one.
Whether Israel’s response is "proportionate" actually has two components. The first is whether Israel’s decision to attack Hizbollah was proportionate to its injuries — e.g., the capture of two its soldiers, past rocket attacks too numerous to count, and the promise of future rocket attacks without end. I think it quite obviously was, and I don’t hear Hilzoy to disagree. It is true that Israel’s response was unexpected — check out this translation of an interview with Hizbollah’s senior leadership (via Kos) — but that’s not the same thing. And, as we’ll discuss in a moment, the fact that Israel’s response was unexpected is actually a point in its favor.
But there’s a second aspect of proportionality, which is Hilzoy’s real focus: whether Israel is now using proportionate means to its end of eradicating Hizbollah. Hilzoy says no. I have to disagree. Israel wanted to change the calculation of terrorism; the result of its "expected" response to Hizbollah’s various provocations was more Israeli depths. That’s a rational act, and one perfectly in line with Israel’s right to defend itself. Hizbollah, that well-fed and -armed proxy for Iran, had declared war on Israel. There is no wrong in Israel taking Hizbollah up on its offer — even if Hizbollah was counting on Israel sitting this one out.
Having decided that it needed to mount a serious response to Hizbollah, there was every reason to make it a serious response. You say, "Two wrongs don’t make a right?" Baby, you don’t wanna mess with the platitudes I’ve got. Like: in for a dime, in for a dollar; don’t start what you won’t finish; don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.
Israel’s goal is to stop the attacks on it, which means that it must degrade Hizbollah’s ability to wage war. One can’t do that without disrupting Hizbollah’s supply chain, destroying command and control, and taking on Hizbollah’s fighters. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how Israel could achieve its military goals without using its current, quite limited, tactics. Those who decry Israel’s response as disprotionate are really saying that Israel’s end — stopping Hizbollah’s rocket attacks — is improper. But that can’t be true. Surely a state has a right to fight those who wage war upon it.
Now, as I suggested, none of the above makes Israel’s decision to launch these attacks a wise one. Indeed — to go back to the platitudinous well — I see a strong possibility that this latest round will end up biting Israel in the butt. Yet, having committed, leaving the job half done can’t be an option. Worse than engaging in a bad policy would be to engage in a bad policy badly: we have learned that, have we not, from Iraq. Israel has to play this one out. The calls to withdraw are premature.
* * * * *
It also bears remembering exactly who Israel is fighting. Indeed, it’s good that we’ve dispensed with any analysis of comparative ethics because, of course, there is no comparison. Hizbollah intentionally targets civilians. Moreover, as even Israel’s critics now admit, Hizbollah’s cowardly tactics are what are killing Lebanese civilians:
"Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending … among women and children," he said. "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don’t think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men."
(H/T RedState.)
Hizbollah isn’t interested in any kind of defense or resistence; it’s interested in a publicity stunt, using dead Lebanese civilians as its advert. If we grant Israel a right to defend itself, we cannot hold it responsible for the evils of its adversary.
And though it all, Israel has avoided targeting civilians.
looks like they need to be a little more careful.
An airstrike hit a U.N. post in the southern Lebanese city of Khiyam late Tuesday, causing casualties, according to the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon.
Lebanese security forces said it was an Israeli airstrike and four U.N. observers were killed, but UNIFIL said it had no further information on the attack.
Its goal is to degrade Hizbollah so that it is no longer an effective fighting force.
Well, last time they tried this, they wiped out Hezbollah fairly quickly and we never heard from them again.
Wait! What’s that, you say? Israel occupied Southern Lebanon for just short of twenty years and failed to eliminate Hezbollah? Huh! Well, I’m sure it’ll work this time around.
I actually agree that Israel’s quasi-invasion of Lebanon was probably a strategic mistake … But I think … that her prescription — STOP! — is the wrong one.
umm, isn’t the first rule of being in a hole is to stop digging? if what Israel is doing is a strategic mistake, then shouldn’t it find a way to stop?
Hizbollah intentionally targets civilians.
And so does Israel. Did you have a point to make there, Von?
“And so does Israel.”
Do you some evidence there for that equivalence, Anderson?
“umm, isn’t the first rule of being in a hole is to stop digging?”
Probably the second rule is “sometimes you have to dig your way out”. No claim as to its applicability here.
Wait! What’s that, you say? Israel occupied Southern Lebanon for just short of twenty years and failed to eliminate Hezbollah? Huh! Well, I’m sure it’ll work this time around.
If you read the post, you’ll see that I’m not convinced that Israel’s policy will work.
Probably the second rule is “sometimes you have to dig your way out”.
Well, if after thirty years you haven’t succeeded, why not keep trying the same damn thing for the next thirty?
If you read the post, you’ll see that I’m not convinced that Israel’s policy will work.
But evidently, you’re not not convinced enough to want them to stop.
If we grant Israel a right to defend itself, we cannot held it responsible for the evils of its adversary.
If this is intended to mean that we can’t hold Israel responsible for killing civilians if Hezbollah has evilly placed itself in close proximity to those civilians, it’s just wrong. The right to self-defense does not extend to killing however many third parties you need to kill to get at the people you’re defending against. Some third parties, yes, but harm done to third parties is a limiting factor on what sort of actions are permissible in self-defense, and that doesn’t change when the evildoers are particularly evil.
Israel’s goal is to degrade Hizbollah so that it is no longer an effective fighting force. It is impossible to do that without disrupting Hizbollah’s supply chain, command and control, and to take on Hizbollah’s fighters directly.
This was the thinking behind bombing Cambodia. We all know how well that turned out.
If this is intended to mean that we can’t hold Israel responsible for killing civilians if Hezbollah has evilly placed itself in close proximity to those civilians, it’s just wrong. The right to self-defense does not extend to killing however many third parties you need to kill to get at the people you’re defending against. Some third parties, yes, but harm done to third parties is a limiting factor on what sort of actions are permissible in self-defense, and that doesn’t change when the evildoers are particularly evil.
Ahh. Thus, so long as I hide my missile launcher in an orphanage — and keep the orphans around me as human shields — I can launch as many missiles at Israel and kill as many Israeli civilians as I want.
Beirut, incidentally, is not a Hezbollah stronghold. Why is Israel bombing Beirut? Why, for that matter, is Israel bombing Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure? It’s pretty damn obvious by now that this is not merely a case of the IDF targeting known Hezbollah agents that happen to live in civilian areas; this is a case of the IDF destroying power plants, factories, dairies, grain silos, carloads of fleeing civilians. At some point this crosses the line from “regrettable tragedy of war” to “targeting noncombatants.”
“Those who decry Israel’s response as disprotionate are really saying that Israel’s end — stopping Hizbollah’s rocket attacks — is improper. But that can’t be true. ”
The end justifies the means?
Nuking Lebanon would surely stop Hizbollah’s rocket attacks. Would that be proper?
To follow up on my comment to DaveL:
Israel is responsible for the orphan’s deaths when it acts to prevent the deaths of other innocents? What if we could have shot down the air liner cruising toward the WTT on 9-11; would the fact that innocents may die preclude us from acting?
Maybe Kant would say so (nihilist!), but that’s only one (of many reasons) why there is no Kantian theory of foreign policy.
“If this is intended to mean that we can’t hold Israel responsible for killing civilians if Hezbollah has evilly placed itself in close proximity to those civilians, it’s just wrong.”
“Wrong” seems over-strong there. I think most people agree killing some number of civilians to protect civilians is acceptable action for a state – the interesting question is “how many given what degree of certainty about the numbers”.
The only way to get Hezbollah out of Lebanon is to build up the Lebanese government to the point where it has the strength and support to dig it out by themselves.
It’s very difficult to see how the current attacks strengthen the Lebanese government. In particular, the attacks on civilian infrastructure (power plants in particular) make it look like Israel *wants* a “failed state” on its border.
The end justifies the means?
No. The ends must be proportionate to the means. What I’m pointing out is Hilzoy isn’t giving the ends a fair hearing in assessing whether the means are proportionate.
And still it must be said that hundreds of Lebanese civilians have died, and hundreds more have been wounded, and hundreds of thousands more have been turned into refugees, as a result of a military operation whose nominal goal is the retrieval of two captured soldiers. There is simply no way to justify the former as a logical outcome of the latter.
Do you some evidence there for that equivalence, Anderson?
Sure, Rilkefan, that would be … the news for the last two weeks? Not to mention the “10 buildings for 1 missile” principle reported in the Jerusalem Post, & mentioned several times in the previous thread?
You might look here and here and here, if you would like your memory refreshed.
As for Von: yes, Von, situating the missile launcher in an orphanage does make your *bombing the freakin’ orphanage* an unacceptable means of dealing with the launcher, if you have other means available that offer a more discriminating attack.
And how many civilians have been killed by these missiles since this war began? 20? Versus, what, 350 Lebanese civilians dead? Hello?
“Why is Israel bombing Beirut?”
It isn’t. It is targeting particular buildings in Beruit.
That is a distinction with a big difference.
Hezbollah targets cities as a whole. It aims missiles in the general direction of a large city and fires. A city as a whole is not typically a legitimate target.
Israel targets particular buildings which Hezbollah has located inside cities. Sometimes Israel misses and hits nearby civilian objects (or people). That sucks. That isn’t the same as “bombing a city”.
Beirut, incidentally, is not a Hezbollah stronghold.
The Southern Suburbs of Beirut, however, are. Which is why they’ve been largely targeted.
“Thus, so long as I hide my missile launcher in an orphanage — and keep the orphans around me as human shields — I can launch as many missiles at Israel and kill as many Israeli civilians as I want.”
What if you only *think* there *could be* be a launcher in the orphanage?
Or in an ambulance?
“A city as a whole is not typically a legitimate target”
At least not if you’re a rich country.
“Why is Israel bombing Beirut?”
As noted a number of times here, Hezbollah has offices in Beirut, and the infrastructure there (e.g. the airport) is of military use to Hezbollah.
“IDF destroying power plants”
I think you mean “disabling power plants by destroying the easily-repaired transformers”, but perhaps not.
What I’m pointing out is Hilzoy isn’t giving the ends a fair hearing in assessing whether the means are proportionate.
The only party whose ends are being served by these means is Hezbollah. I have heard no one make a convincing case otherwise.
“As for Von: yes, Von, situating the missile launcher in an orphanage does make your *bombing the freakin’ orphanage* an unacceptable means of dealing with the launcher, if you have other means available that offer a more discriminating attack.”
So far as I know, they don’t. And I’m not sure it holds as a general rule anyway. If Hezbollah sets up an orphanage as a trap and keeps firing missiles from it, Israel isn’t required to let Hezbollah kill 100 soldiers trying to take it when they could bomb it.
If you know of better means to stop Hezbollah from launching missiles into Israel, please feel free to share it.
What if you only *think* there *could be* be a launcher in the orphanage?
Jon H, I cannot give you a rulebook on this one. The fact that right and wrong — proportionate and disproportionate — exist does not mean that they are always knowable. What I can say is that Israel’s response is uncontrovertibly proportional to its ends of degrading Hizbollah.
It isn’t. It is targeting particular buildings in Beruit.
That is a distinction with a big difference.
Hezbollah targets cities as a whole.
Let’s see: blowing up an entire 10-12-story building to kill what may be some enemies inside, vs. tossing your bomb into a city?
I fail to see the moral superiority.
Juan Cole, I noticed, agrees that Hezbollah’s inaccurate missiles make its missile attacks war crimes. That’s not the issue. The issue is that Israel is not killing 300+ civilians *by accident*. The burden is on Israel to demonstrate otherwise.
“And how many civilians have been killed by these missiles since this war began? 20? Versus, what, 350 Lebanese civilians dead? Hello?”
Once again, Hezbollah has claimed about 3 deaths of their forces. That is rather unlikely. How many of those civilians were Hezbollah? And why should Israel be punished for having a vastly better civil defense system? (Vastly better than anywhere else in the world in fact).
I also second Sebastian’s 6:24 p.m. comment to Jon H.
Anderson, not to be pedantic, but you need evidence that Israel is intentionally targeting civilians to make your claim, not that Israel is killing civilians.
Christmas: “as a result of a military operation whose nominal goal is the retrieval of two captured soldiers. There is simply no way to justify the former as a logical outcome of the latter.”
Note that there’s other stuff at issue here.
The issue is that Israel is not killing 300+ civilians *by accident*.
What, Israel is killing these civilians intentionally? Where’s the evidence of that? And specifics, please.
“The burden is on Israel to demonstrate otherwise.”
Really? I’m not so sure that is the case. Perhaps the burden should be on Hezbollah (since it violates the rules of distinction by failing to separate itself from civilians) to prove that the people killed were not members of Hezbollah. Also they started the war.
350 dead in a week-long series of bombing raids isn’t very much from a historical perspective. You avoid war in general to avoid things like that. But once in a war, that isn’t very many.
So far as I know, they don’t.
Two words: ground troops.
But okay. I see that murdering hundreds of civilians, deliberately or recklessly, in a foolish war that cannot possibly achieve its objective, is A-OK with ObWi’s right wing. Why did I ever think otherwise?
I think you mean “disabling power plants by destroying the easily-repaired transformers”,
The hospitals they supply electricity to are just as screwed.
You avoid war in general to avoid things like that.
Evidently not.
Hezbollah targets cities as a whole. It aims missiles in the general direction of a large city and fires. A city as a whole is not typically a legitimate target.
I suggest a fundraising campaign so that Hezbollah can be provided with high-tech guided missiles. While on the surface this might be seen as supporting a terrorist group, it would be likely transforming a terrorist group into a bona fide military force that would have the technical capability to target just military targets. Or power plants, roads, bridges, airport runways, ambulances, and fleeing refugees flying white flags, as these also seem to be legitimate war targets these days.
We could call it the “Smart Money for Smart Missiles” campaign or something.
Who’s in?
What I can say is that Israel’s response is uncontrovertibly proportional to its ends of degrading Hizbollah.
not only can you say it, you did say it. That doesn’t mean you’re right. In fact, threads here and on other blogs pretty convincingly prove the statement false; the proportionality of the response is controverted.
You yourself controverted the proportionality of the response in your own post, when you said that the response might be a strategic mistake.
Let’s try the following syllogism:
A. Al Qaeda attacks the US.
B. The US attacks Iraq in response.
C. The US’s response, no matter how careful the US is in avoiding civilian casualties not proportional to its ends of degrading Al Qaeda.
why? because the mistake is in the decision, not the execution.
I believe Israel would have been much better off in its tactical and strategic goals if it had (a) told everyone to flee; (b) established safe corridors; (c) said that no trucks would be allowed in the safe corridors; (d) rolled in ground troops and (e) announced to the world that it was going to go get the missiles and launchers and take them by force.
“So far as I know, they don’t. And I’m not sure it holds as a general rule anyway. If Hezbollah sets up an orphanage as a trap and keeps firing missiles from it, Israel isn’t required to let Hezbollah kill 100 soldiers trying to take it when they could bomb it.”
Hate to quote myself, but I need to expand.
There is a war crime involved upon bombing the orphanage at this point. The crime accrues to the party which hid the military target in the civilian object.
The Geneva rules are set up that way
A) to discourage people from mixing military targets with civilian objects and;
B) because it was obvious when they were writing the rules that if you were being shot at from the civilian object, you were eventually going to shoot back.
I know that this picture portrays the practices of Hamas and Fatah, but I daresay that Hizballah uses the same tactics.
Hizballah attacks against Israelis haven’t only occurred in Lebanon.
von: “What I’m pointing out is Hilzoy isn’t giving the ends a fair hearing in assessing whether the means are proportionate.”
Actually, I haven’t discussed the question whether the means are proportionate much, as far as I can recall. That’s because I do not think that the present campaign is, in fact, a means to the end of dealing a decisive blow to Hezbollah, or protecting Israeli citizens for more than, say, six months, and that in the long run it will harm Israel.
If it would actually achieve the goals stated for it, then we could discuss whether or not it was proportionate. But if it won’t, then I think it;s just clearly deeply unwise, and should be stopped asap.
About this: “Worse than engaging in a bad policy would be to engage in a bad policy badly: we have learned that, have we not, from Iraq. Israel has to play this one out.” — In Iraq, we are actually doing something, in an ongoing way, and doing it badly. Stopping bombing would just, well, stop the bombing. What actual reason is there to think that this would be (a) worse than not stopping, and (b) enough worse to compensate for the deaths we can expect as the result of another week of bombing?
And as an aside: there is, in fact, such a thing as Kantian foreign policy. I quite like it, actually, though as one would expect, there are outdated parts.
Sebastian, the headquarters of Hezbollah is in Southern Beruit in a heavily populated area. It has been hit repeatedly by Israeli ordinance, causing an enormous amount of damage to the surrounding area.
Now, this isn’t quite the rocket launcher in the crying orphan’s crib that you are postulating. Do you think this is a case of Hezbollah using human shields?
For that matter, how many rocket launching sites have been found in Lebanese orphanages?
And why are these things being called “rockets” instead of “missiles” anyway?
“disabling power plants by destroying the easily-repaired transformers”,”
You don’t repair destroyed high voltage transformers, not if you’re sane. You replace them. Which takes a long time, but not as long as a generator would.
“I see a strong possibility that this latest round will end up biting Israel in the butt. Yet, having committed, leaving the job half done can’t be an option. Worse than engaging in a bad policy would be to engage in a bad policy badly: we have learned that, have we not, from Iraq. Israel has to play this one out. The calls to withdraw are premature.”
You(We?) are gonna lose, von. You’re all confused, fighting terrorism as if it were Vietnam as farce with WWII pep talks and tactics. You don’t even understand what you are fighting well enough to even recognize that you have already lost. In fact, you really have no option, either terrorism or the old order (conservatism, used to include HRC) has to lose decisively, so the old order will commit suicide. You cannot win and remain what you are. Only by losing, nobly and with somebody else’s sacrifice, can you hold on to your old affects and symbols.
The DaVinci Clods
Billmon only gets about half what Newberry does. Billmon understands that the IDF is losing in Lebanon in the same way Bushco is losing in Iraq;Billmon understands why and how; Billmon doesn’t quite understand why Hezbollah and Sadr are winning…
…and why the PTB need to lose.
“Sebastian, the headquarters of Hezbollah is in Southern Beruit in a heavily populated area. It has been hit repeatedly by Israeli ordinance, causing an enormous amount of damage to the surrounding area.
Now, this isn’t quite the rocket launcher in the crying orphan’s crib that you are postulating. Do you think this is a case of Hezbollah using human shields?”
Yes.
I know that this picture portrays the practices of Hamas and Fatah, but I daresay that Hizballah uses the same tactics.
Uh, what exactly are the circumstances of that photo? Is that a militant in a firefight with the IDF? Could those kids behind the birm be, I don’t know, be there for cover instead of being forced human shields?
C’mon.
Yes.
So where should the headquarters be? In an empty field somewhere? Does the US plan on removing the Pentagon from a heavily populated region anytime soon?
And keep in mind that Hezbollah is not simply a military/guerrilla/terrorist organization, it has a large component that deals with hospityals, schools, food services, and other civic responsibilities. Putting it on a remote hilltop with plashing neon arrows pointing at it, while obliging to the IDF, might crimp availability of those services.
I’ve got to hand it to you Von, if nothing else, you’re consistent.
No matter how addle-pated the concept or ham-handed the execution, you want(ed?) to see the U.S. remain in Iraq.
And now we have the Israel situation. I can only wonder if their population is going to grow as sickened as quickly at the pointlessness of this endeavour as the majority of the American public? Probably not, given their proximity to Hizballah.
So there’s now two unwinnable situations in the middle east, with the ususal neo-con suspects pushing for a trifecta. It looks like the decade of the ’00’s will go down as the era of Pyrrhic victories.
hilzoy: “If it would actually achieve the goals stated for it, then we could discuss whether or not it was proportionate.”
Note that it would have to achieve not necessarily any set of stated goals but just useful goals – it’s not a priori clear to me that it won’t – or it would have to be better than the other available options – which is also not clear to me. Measuring degress of badness is a difficult matter.
Actually, I’m going to quibble about “achieve” as well – there ought to be something like “was intended to achieve blah and was carried out with reasonable care” there.
Re stopping the bombing, of course it would give Hezbollah time to regroup, and it might lead to an ignominious retreat by the Israelis leading to greater likelihood of violence in the future (which might well happen anyway of course).
And why are these things being called “rockets” instead of “missiles” anyway?
Finally, a question I can answer.
Rockets are dumb weapons. Fuel and warhead: light them and they fly until they run out of fuel, and they explode when they hit their target.
Missiles have seeking capability and can alter their trajectory while in flight.
Do you mean ordinances, or ordnance? There’s a wee spot of difference, although the results can be devastating in either case.
I am absenting myself from felicity while, and you won’t have Bob to kick you around as much anymore.
It is depressing beyong measure. WWII is the wrong metaphor. We are watching the Guns of August again. I guess I could hate the madness repeating in the old man’s sentiments written in blood in new Verduns and Sommes…
ok I will hate the madmen.
ack
You(We?) are gonna lose, von.
You’re mistaken, bob. von’s not on the team.
Spelling mishap, Slarti. I meant big exploding things.
What, Israel is killing these civilians intentionally? Where’s the evidence of that? And specifics, please.
Here and here. How much do you suppose cars full of children look like Katyusha rockets through IDF missile sights? And the IDF bombs ambulances here. “We count on Israel to respect the neutrality of the Red Cross, but they don’t.”
Here’s something on Israel using cluster bombs in civilian areas, which isn’t really news but is pretty damn indiscriminate.
“Missiles have seeking capability and can alter their trajectory while in flight.”
Not quite accurate if you’re saying they have a seeker. More succinctly, missiles are guided; rockets are unguided. Rockets cannot steer.
“Spelling mishap, Slarti. I meant big exploding things.”
Yeah, I knew that. But there was humor there to be had, damnit.
“We count on Israel to respect the neutrality of the Red Cross, but they don’t”
There’s a rich history of Palestinians not respecting the neutrality of…isn’t it the Red Crescent?
How much do you suppose cars full of children look like Katyusha rockets through IDF missile sights?
I would suspect that was mistaken intelligence, as they are undoubtably trying to also kill Hezbollah soldiers leaving the area.
What is really unfortunate is that they are dropping leaflets telling people to leave, then killing them on the road. Not nice.
Yikes. Having just read all the comments in Hilzoy’s thread, AND what has gone on in the open thread, I stepping back from all this. See y’all down the road a bit. No aspersions on anyone, it’s just a matter of heading out to the parking lot before people start breaking pool cues.
“So where should the headquarters be? In an empty field somewhere? Does the US plan on removing the Pentagon from a heavily populated region anytime soon?”
The Pentagon is most certainly not in a heavily populated region in the same way that Hezbollah headquarters is. Presuming we let the Israeli air force fly in, they could total the Pentagon without destroying civilian objects. You are using the term “region” to describe two very different scales. It is as if you said “bombing in San Diego County” (4200 square miles) and “bombing in the Hillcrest neighborhood of San Diego city (maybe 5 square miles).
“How much do you suppose cars full of children look like Katyusha rockets through IDF missile sights?”
Have you considered the idea that they could have been next to a legitimate target when the missile was fired? This is what happens when Hezbollah refuses to distinguish and separate itself from civilians.
And I don’t buy that Beirut is a legitimate target akin to the rockets in Southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is not launching rockets out of Beirut; whatever small gains are made by knocking down Nasrallah’s office are completely outweighed by the risk to the large number of civilians who happen to live in Beirut because it’s the commercial and political hub of the country, and as such is the most populated city in Lebanon. It’s simply amoral to weigh life that cheaply.
Have you considered the idea that they could have been next to a legitimate target when the missile was fired?
Have you read those articles? They were fleeing precisely because the IDF told them to – and they were killed anyway.
The Pentagon is most certainly not in a heavily populated region in the same way that Hezbollah headquarters is.
I suggest a fundraiser so that Hezbollah can set up a massive well-defended military centre not near any civilian, uh, objects.
While on the surface, this may seem like support of a terrorist organization, in will be in fact their opportunity to demonstrate that they are not simply putting their political headquarters in an area that serves their political support in order to use them as human shields.
We can call the campaign … uh …. hang on … “Bricks to Beruit” or something.
Who’s in?
There’s a rich history of Palestinians not respecting the neutrality of…isn’t it the Red Crescent?
This is a complete non sequitur. What does that have to do with the fact that Israel is, indeed, targeting civilians?
if von and CB and andrew are like the old fools who started the insanity that led the youth of Europe to march proudly into the machine guns…
the rest of you look like the disarmament movement, circa 1905. Just a lil’ silly, folks. At least Emma, Vladimir Ilyich, and the anarchists understood that everything was gonna blow up. The kings wore the commoner’s crown.
Dada, Dada, Dada
Have you considered the idea that they could have been next to a legitimate target when the missile was fired?
Yeah, they were probably had a rocket on the roof rack or something.
SH: “they could have been next to a legitimate target when the missile was fired?”
I think the Israelis need to have a simple policy of “no shooting cars heading north”, regardless of what’s nearby, no exceptions tolerated, no fog of war.
Christmas: “It’s simply amoral to weigh life that cheaply.”
I think people arguing that bombing Nasrallah’s HQ is effective would counter that you’re weighing Israeli lives too cheaply.
What I can say is that Israel’s response is uncontrovertibly proportional to its ends of degrading Hizbollah.
I don’t think there’s any way, given the fog of war, that you can say it’s “uncontrovertibly proportional.”
A lot of the differences on this conflict are not philosophical; they are flat-out factual disputes as to whether Israel has gone overboard by selecting targets that lack a sufficient connection to Hezbollah. Again, I don’t think we can sit here, reading news reports and clicking links on the Internet, and claim we know the answer with 100% certainty.
We know a lot of civilians have died from Israeli strikes. But it’s a false choice to say they either died “on purpose” or “by accident.” The fact is, when you launch a given attack you have an X chance of taking out a military target and a Y chance of killing someone innocent, not that either of these variables can be absolutely quantified; and if Y is too high in relation to X, you shouldn’t do it. But if you launch the attack anyway, and innocent people died, it’s not that you “intentionally” targeted them; it’s just that you exposed them to a negligently high degree of risk. That’s culpable even though it wasn’t “intentional” conduct.
Beruit as a whole is not a legitimate target. The headquarters of your enemy is always a legitimate target. That is true whether or not the headquarters is in Beruit. The White House would be a legitimate target in a war against the US. Nuking Washington DC as a whole wouldn’t be legitimate.
The fact that Beruit is the most populated city in Lebanon doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. Israel isn’t leveling the city (like Syria did when fighting a similar force). It is attacking Hezbollah’s structures. Hezbollah put them in civilian places. Civilians who stay near Hezbollah buildings are in danger.
“I suggest a fundraiser so that Hezbollah can set up a massive well-defended military centre not near any civilian, uh, objects.”
They will take your money and not move their headquarters. They want to be mixed in with civilians. That is a part of their strategy.
Seb writes: “The Pentagon is most certainly not in a heavily populated region in the same way that Hezbollah headquarters is.”
How about the recruiting station in Times Square? Not HQ, certainly, but could be considered an “office”.
They will take your money and not move their headquarters. They want to be mixed in with civilians. That is a part of their strategy.
As their military seems to be humming along just fine even with the party’s headquarters lying spread out over half of south Beruit, I sincerely doubt that was their military headquarters. It was their political headquarters, and as such was in the middle of their main political support, Beruit’s Shia district.
I wonder if Israel’s political and military headquarters are on deserted hilltops? Otherwise they too can be accused of the strategy of using the surrounding population as shields.
“This is a complete non sequitur. What does that have to do with the fact that Israel is, indeed, targeting civilians?”
Red Crescent’s priveleged status being abused in the past is irrelevant? Ok. So, Israel has targeted ambulance(s) illegitimately. Let’s just consider that for a moment: what do you think Israel’s objective is in targeting an ambulance?
“Let’s just consider that for a moment: what do you think Israel’s objective is in targeting an ambulance?”
Reducing the morale of the civilian population?
Ok, let’s back up. Hizbollah rains death down on Israeli civilians without regard to any rules at all, and uses the civilian population as a shield. On counterstrike, civilians are killed. Who gets the blame? Who, exactly, is showing reckless disregard for human life?
“Reducing the morale of the civilian population?”
So, your immediate answer is that Israel is willing to commit war crimes for some indeterminate end.
Well, I think that calibrates you rather neatly.
I would speculate that the reason ambulances are being sometimes targetted is because they are either mistaken for something else, or because they are suspected of being used for a military purpose, which I think is Slarti’s point.
Never ascribe to malice what can be attributed to incompetence and low estimation of the costs associate with civilian casualties.
Who gets the blame?
Those firing the bullets, missiles, and artillery causing the casualties, Slart. In other words, the ones doing the killing have decided that the value of the lifes and security their own citizenry is more valuable than those of others, an understandable position. But others might do a different estimation.
As an aside, how many rockets were being fired prior to Hezbollah’s over-the-border raid? I haven’t been able to locate that info.
The Pentagon is most certainly not in a heavily populated region in the same way that Hezbollah headquarters is.
Uh, how to ask this without being impolite . . . ?
Are you nuts?
There’s a shopping mall across the street. Along with dozens of apartments, offices, townhomes and condos. Take a look at the stuff just south, on the other side of 395. That’s all commercial and residential.
“Never ascribe to malice what can be attributed to incompetence and low estimation of the costs associate with civilian casualties.”
Or to the fact that you, over here, don’t know anywhere near enough about the situation to make a snap judgement.
what do you think Israel’s objective is in targeting an ambulance?
Perhaps this:
The word ambulance doesn’t make an appearance in that link. When he’s referring to Lebanese consciousness, he’s referring to Hizbollah.
Unless it’s your contention that it’s non-Hizbollah Lebanese that kidnapped the soldiers. If that’s the case, better make it now.
“There’s a shopping mall across the street.”
Is that “across the fat orange highway”?
In any case, it looks big enough that a careful attacker could easily avoid civilians.
Or to the fact that you, over here, don’t know anywhere near enough about the situation to make a snap judgement.
Are you in Beruit right now, Slarti?
Yes, rilkefan, the Pentagon is located an entire quarter mile from all that stuff. One can, in fact, walk from the Pentagon parking lot (or Metro stop) under the freeway to the mall. Thank heavens no attacks ever miss or are wrongly targeted.
In any case, I think it demonstrates that the Pentagon is, in fact, “located in a residential area.”
Thus, so long as I hide my missile launcher in an orphanage — and keep the orphans around me as human shields — I can launch as many missiles at Israel and kill as many Israeli civilians as I want.
A little late responding, but the point was that Israel gets to bomb the missile launcher if and only if it’s a target of sufficient importance to justify killing the orphans in order to destroy it. The fact that Hezbollah did wrong by putting its missile launcher there does not necessarily mean that Israel would not also be doing wrong by killing the orphans to destroy the launcher. It isn’t the orphans’ fault the missile launcher is there. If the launcher is a big enough threat to Israel to justify killing the orphans to destroy it, that’s one thing, but suggesting that once Hezbollah has put the launcher there the orphans are no longer entitled to consideration is something different. I kind of thought that was part of what the whole proportionality thing was all about.
A good strategy applies strengths against the enemy’s weak points. Israel’s current strategy plays to Hezbollah’s strengths and lessens Israel’s moral and political superiority. Let’s see. Israel targets infrastructure, rockets and Hezbollah members. This does not hurt Hezbollah much:
1. The infrastructure will be rebuilt with oil money and UN and EU grants.
2. The rocket resupply orders are, I assume, currently being processed in Iran or Syria.
3. Angry young men are in over-supply in the region. Israel just sows new dragon’s teeth.
Israel’s strength is its democracy. It should have helped the new democratic Cedar Revolution government by letting it score some quick wins (without much cost to Israel: freeing some prisoners after a nice demand by the Lebanese PM, etc.). Then, the new government could with UN help have increased democratic pressure on Hezbollah (rooting out those tunnels for instance).
Israel (and the US) cannot defeat Hezbollah, only the Arabs can (Just like the British could not defeat the IRA, only the Irish people could.).
it looks big enough that a careful attacker could easily avoid civilians.
Indeed. That’s why we gave Al Qaeda such enormous credit for the great care they took.
Are you in Beruit right now, Slarti?
Nope. Neither, I’d guess, is anyone else commenting on this thread. Which of us is, though, jumping to conclusions?
Which of us is, though, jumping to conclusions?
Did I jump to a conclusion that I didn’t notice? Where?
“Indeed. That’s why we gave Al Qaeda such enormous credit for the great care they took.”
Taking down the WTC towers? Um…I think that word care does not mean what you think it means.
Us, dpu, can in fact refer to a larger group than just you and I.
Us, dpu, can in fact refer to a larger group than just you and I.
Sure, but it was you and me doing the talking in that bit, so I, y’know…
Phil, I have no depth perception, and no familiarity with military matters more recent than 200 CE, but my guess is that a 1/4 mile distance from an object the entire other side of which can be attacked safely and which does not tower over said mall is sufficient. Attacking a ten-story building surrounded by civilians seems to be a much dicier matter.
Also one might ask about the circumstances under which the Pentagon was built – presumably the mall wasn’t there. I’d further imagine the mall would be evacuated in case of a credible military threat to DC.
“There’s a shopping mall across the street. Along with dozens of apartments, offices, townhomes and condos. Take a look at the stuff just south, on the other side of 395. That’s all commercial and residential.”
The closest thing is the Macy’s Pentagon City. In between the Pentagon and the Macy’s is a huge parking lot and a very large freeway. It appears to be over 1/4 mile away. Rather different from having apartment buildings that nearly abut the building.
WRT Hezbollah using civilians as shields, let’s note that any Hezbollah office or building used in any Hezbollah function is a target. Considering almost all of these are being used in the charity functions of the Hezbollah, it’s kind of an odd target classification. I guess it would be akin to considering any Federal buildings as military targets because they’re associated with our government.
I’ve still yet to see anyone speak to the point that no rockets were fired to set off Israel’s reaction – i.e. it was a kidnapping of soldiers, not anything to do with civilians. So, it would seem that this article pointed out at LGM would be quite appropriate here.
Finally, I think it should be obvious that abstract rules of engagement are of little value to someone who’s just lost their family and loved ones. Except for those living in the bizarro world, I think pretty much everyone agrees this whole mess isn’t going to be resolved militarily short of genocide which doesn’t seem to (yet) be on the table. So, any civilian deaths do nothing but back slide your strategic goals. And when you have such a huge differential in civilian deaths, that effect is non-linear and staggering.
There were a few more of us, once upon a time upthread.
This, on the other hand:
I completely disagree with. If you think it’s somehow justifiable to hide behind the civilian population, you’ve failed to understand why there are rules in place to forbid such action.
Oh, and I found this at Haaretz rather interesting. Again, playing to the tit for tat article pointed to above.
Also, if you inspect the map you can see that most of the things across the street from the Pentagon are huge parking lots.
“I guess it would be akin to considering any Federal buildings as military targets because they’re associated with our government.”
Like targeting a Toys For Tots office.
…which is not quite the same as saying it’s totally groovy to kill 1000 civilians to get at one legitimate combatant, mind you. I’m not sure if there’s actually any justifiable trade in that respect, but it certainly ought to be clear where the blame lies in setting the whole sequence in action.
Slart, are you really telling me that if the US was invaded (let’s take the Red Dawn scenario) we wouldn’t resort to almost identical tactics?
I find that hard to believe
Jon H: No, more like – say – the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.
You’re saying, Hal, that we would target civilians?
Um…no. Not even in the movies.
I’m saying that we would use civilians as shields.
“I’m not sure if there’s actually any justifiable trade in that respect, but it certainly ought to be clear where the blame lies in setting the whole sequence in action.”
I suppose it depends on the rules of engagement.
It’s one thing to hit an orphanage that has a missile launcher in it. It’s another thing to start targeting orphanages in general because there was once a missile launcher in an orphanage, even though that could be rationalized as “denying the enemy potential cover” or something.
Likewise, it’s one thing to engage an ambulance if you see the enemy using it. It’s another thing to target ambulances in general because they might be in use by the enemy.
Down that road attacks on Israeli citizens could be justified because, due to the widespread (compulsory?) military service any given civilian may be a reservist, may have been military, or may soon be military.
Down that road attacks on Israeli citizens could be justified…
Yep, this is the logic at play.
The closest thing is the Macy’s Pentagon City. In between the Pentagon and the Macy’s is a huge parking lot and a very large freeway. It appears to be over 1/4 mile away. Rather different from having apartment buildings that nearly abut the building.
You’re picking nits here. If I can see it from an office or apartment window it’s in my goddamned neighborhood. I can walk to the Pentagon from my office, Sebastian; I hardly need you to describe to me where it is and isn’t located.
“I’m saying that we would use civilians as shields.”
While targeting civilians? Or are you making an inapt comparison, here?
Factual note: it is not nuts to suppose that a car looked like a target, from an airplane. As I wrote in the other thread, Israel is after (among other things) Katyusha launchers, which can be mounted on the back of a truck (not an 18wheeler, but a pickup sort of thing), and Katyushas, a number of which can be carried in cars.
Moral note: this is why it is important to have some standard in mind of how likely you have to think it is that something is a legitimate target, rather than e.g. fleeing civilians, before you hit it. If Hezbollah was occasionally in the habit of traveling in ordinary cars or vans, that would not (imho) make it legitimate to bomb every car on the highway. If 99% of the cars were Hezbollah, that would be another story.
To my mind, saying that any risk at all that one will hit civilians is unacceptable is nuts; but saying that the fact that some group hangs out among civilians, or does things (e.g. driving cars) that allow targeters to mistake civilians for Hezbollah, legitimates literally any number of civilian casualties, is also nuts. It has to be about the drawing of lines.
This whole thing is a play by Israel to take out the Hezbollah rockets. ISRAEL escalated this into the debacle it has become in order to “degrade” Hezbollah’s ability to damage northern Israel. This is the plan the IDF has had in place for months, awaiting only the cover of a Hezbollah attack – any attack.
Israel decided months ago that civilian deaths in Lebanon were an acceptable price to pay for removing the threat of the rockets.
Except – the rockets keep coming, Hezbollah hasn’t given up, and the civilian deaths in Lebanon and Israel keep mounting. Israel erred, and badly. They have lost the support of much of the world, and they have not yet and are not likely to seriously harm Hezbollah, short of genocide. Looked at in that light, you could say that EVERY death, Lebanese or Israli, is a result of Israeli hubris and miscalculation – just as it is a result of Hezbollah hubris and miscalculation.
I think that Israel intended to harm Lebanon, as even they recognize that it is up to the Lebanese to end Hezbollah. So, if that is true, they intended the main effect of their attack to fall on civilians from the very beginning, and claiming to target Hezbollah is no more than a shallow cover for their real end – terrorizing the Lebanese population into ending Hezbollah, and thereby ending the threat to Israel of the Hezbollah rockets. See here Hezbollah Rockets for some discussion on the rockets. There is much more to be found on line, much of it by Israeli sources.
I think it is clear – when the neo-cons play with weapons, people always get hurt. The government in Israel is apparently little different from our own failed administration – prideful, arrogant, and misguided.
Jake
Slartibartfast:
No, attacking the Pentagon.
I’m trying to make what seems to me a pretty simple point. Do I really have to spell it out?
Uh huh. I take it that “supportive Shiite community,” here:
also means Hizbollah. Thank goodness that while the Israeli military establishment is extremely sloppy with their words, they are extremely careful with their bombs.
Slartibartfast, some time ago I suggested that people who got the WMD issue (as well as other issues) wrong on Iraq could benefit from listening to the people who were right. Now might be a good time to start.
Talking about rules of engagement without having agreement on the purpose of the war is really silly.
In WWII, the purpose of the war was the utter destruction of the enemy. Despite the unquestionable (unless you’re a loon) evil of the Axis powers, people still debate the morality of the Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagaski bombings.
Israel wants to do … what, exactly? Destroy the ability of Hezbollah to strike Israel? That’s a purely military objective that does not justify hitting anyone on the road fleeing north. Kill Hezbollah fighters? Air power’s a pretty indiscriminate tool. Terrify the Lebanese into not backing Hezbollah? Right. Last time you hit a hornet’s nest, did the hornets pursue you or the baaad hornet who bit you and caused you to hit the nest in the first place.
Hezbollah doesn’t obey our rules of war. OK, point conceded. So now what? Even if SH can persuade every last reader of this thread that Hezbollah cheat, who cares? How many Lebanese read this blog anyways?
Returning to the Pentagon, it’s one of the largest buildings in the world, so it’s hardly a fair comparison to discuss missing it vs. missing a small building in a cramped city.
but, let’s say that the Chinese are sick and tired of the US committing war crimes in the ME and decide to use some wacky orbital kinetic bomb on the Pentagon. So they hit it, but the spillover effect kills a bunch of civilians.
Precisely how many people in the US, other than Noam Chomsky and Chalmers Johnson, will blame the administration? Two? The other three hundred million of us will be rightfully pissed off at the Chinese.
so, to reiterate, Hezbollah cheats as measured against our rules of war. So what? Where does that get you?
If you think it’s somehow justifiable to hide behind the civilian population, you’ve failed to understand why there are rules in place to forbid such action.
I’m at a loss as to why you might think that was my position.
“Factual note: it is not nuts to suppose that a car looked like a target, from an airplane.”
It’s worth noting that the Israeli Air Force is equipped with the Litening targeting pod, which is almost as good as our best. The notion that they’d mistake a car for a truck at any sane weapons-release distance is not very well-founded. Our targeting pods can recognize tanks by type at distances far beyond maximum weapon-release range.
This is one area of military capability where I’m fairly well-versed, just to be clear.
“I think it is clear – when the neo-cons play with weapons, people always get hurt.”
So, Israel is chock-full of conservatives who used to be liberals? Who knew?
“No, attacking the Pentagon.”
Note that the upset level over that, although not exactly zero, is nowhere near as high as the upset over the WTC attacks.
Uh huh. I take it that “supportive Shiite community,” here…also means Hizbollah.
Perhaps. More likely, it means those who are helping Hizbollah. Note there’s nothing in there about punishing people who aren’t supporting Hizbollah.
Slartibartfast, some time ago I suggested that people who got the WMD issue (as well as other issues) wrong on Iraq could benefit from listening to the people who were right. Now might be a good time to start.
Whereupon I pointed out that back then, there were a great deal of people saying things about Iraq that were wrong, and wrong from both sides of the aisle, and that there’s really no way of telling which is which except in hindsight.
And if you’re proposing that I ought to listen to your opinions in this matter, recall that you’re the guy who thinks Israel could be resettled to Palm Springs.
And you wonder why I don’t take your admonitions all that seriously.
Note that the upset level over that, although not exactly zero, is nowhere near as high as the upset over the WTC attacks.
And, to make sure we count things the way they actually stand, AQ killed 58 civilian passengers to accomplish their end.
So, no, I’m not seeing it.
Slarti: I stand corrected. However, since Katyushas can be carried in e.g. a van, wouldn’t it be possible for a van without Katyushas, but with fleeing passengers, to be mistaken for a van with Katyushas? Or does it somehow detect the presence of rockets and/or launchers?
Whereupon I pointed out that back then, there were a great deal of people saying things about Iraq that were wrong, and wrong from both sides of the aisle, and that there’s really no way of telling which is which except in hindsight.
I, on the other hand, got everything right about Iraq so far.
Oh, sure. No, a targeting pod cannot see inside a vehicle.
Well, dpu, I promise to have listened to you all along.
We’re going to have to work out some verb tenses for time-travel, though. Maybe rilkefan knows some.
“And if you’re proposing that I ought to listen to your opinions in this matter, recall that you’re the guy who thinks Israel could be resettled to Palm Springs.”
Slarti, that’s me, Jon H. You’re responding to someone else. Perhaps Jon S. left off the S.
Slarti — thanks. — I mean, obviously, I was trying to explain how fleeing people in civilian vehicles could be hit w/o its being on purpose, and besides being grateful for the clarification, I’m also grateful that I don’t have to draw the awful conclusion that they were hit on purpose just yet.
In the very first post on this thread Cleek references a story about an air strike on a UN post in the southern Lebanese city of Khiyam.
From a variety of news reports it appears that:
1. The post has been in that building since 1972.
2. It is claimed that it was well marked as a UN post.
3. Kofi Annan is accusing the IDF of targetting the post which suffered a direct hit.
4. Four UN personel are confirmed dead.
I find it impossible to believe that the IDF is deliberately targetting the UN in southern Lebanon. But I haven’t yet seen any response to that accusation.
“The trouble with trouble is that it always gets worse.”
Hilzoy, I suspect that the reason some vehicles are being targetted is because they are suspected to be involved in military operations. This is a natural consequence of using civilian-appearing vehicles for military purposes.
While there is much throwing around of the human shield theory, another is that Hezbollah naturally does not want to be overly distinguishable from civilian vehicles. The end result is pretty much the same, however, unnecessary civilian casualties.
Slarti writes: “Note there’s nothing in there about punishing people who aren’t supporting Hizbollah.”
Bombs can’t tell the difference.
I doubt Israel’s targeting pod can see a pro-Hizbollah bumper sticker on a fleeing car.
Hilzoy:
But we can’t predict success (or lack thereof). Your best estimate is that, even with a rigorous assault, we’ll be back to the status quo ante in six months. I’m not sure about that — and a lot depends on exactly how fully Israel prosecutes this war, and the conditions it manages to extract from its proponents.
And as an aside: there is, in fact, such a thing as Kantian foreign policy. I quite like it, actually, though as one would expect, there are outdated parts.
Well, whaddaya know. You learn something new every day. I guess I should have said that no modern state practices a Kantian foreign policy.
Bob Mc.:
In fact, Vietnam — a tactical loss — likely was a strategic win. There had been a serious effort by China and Russia to export communism to SE Asia. The costs inflicted by Korea and Vietnam stopped them.
Now, I don’t advocate adventurism. But I do advocate seeing things through and taking, where possible, the long view.
Many: I’m curious whether many of the commentariat would ever endorse the use of military power; if we can ever have a war fought clean enought to satisfy their sense of propriety and fair play.
I find it impossible to believe that the IDF is deliberately targetting the UN in southern Lebanon. But I haven’t yet seen any response to that accusation.
I’m a bit confused about this as well. I can’t think of a rationale for an intentional strike on this, but there have been a number of nearby strikes. Weird.
“Slarti, that’s me, Jon H. You’re responding to someone else. Perhaps Jon S. left off the S.”
Ack. Retracted, with blushes.
And retracted as concerns the other, uninitial(iz)ed Jon. My other comments still hold, though.
Seb: While targeting civilians? Or are you making an inapt comparison, here?
If all we had was inaccurate rockets at our disposal, the result would be indistinguishable. We’d be hiding among the civilian population, fighting without uniforms and – assuming we didn’t have precision guided weapons any more because we were, you know, invaded and fighting on the run without radar, lasers and GPS – hitting civilians with our laughably inaccurate weapons.
The point is, if we were put in the same position as they are in now, I think we’d be doing pretty much the same thing. It’s one thing to sit around with precision weapons and deplore the inaccuracy of the guerrilla weapon. It’s another thing to be put in the same position and then try to uphold your clean standards with inferior firepower.
Many: I’m curious whether many of the commentariat would ever endorse the use of military power; if we can ever have a war fought clean enought to satisfy their sense of propriety and fair play.
If you changed that to “effective use of military power” then I would agree. But this little adventure is so stupid that I have to wonder what the hell the Israeli government is allegedly thinking.
That was me, Hal, not Sebastian.
And of course having bad weapons is an excuse. Surely they were shooting at military targets, only they (surprise!) missed.
“But I haven’t yet seen any response to that accusation.”
FWIW, Israel officially regrets the deaths and will launch an investigation. Either it was an accident or some pilot’s in even worse trouble. Not sure it’s responsible of Annan to go directly to the intentional claim.
rf, it was clearly intentional. Whether it was the of the individual pulling the trigger, or a policy of a nation, that is a different question.
Jake
Whoops. Sorry for the incorrect attribution, Slart.
But what else is a guerrilla going to do. And if you’d have read the Haaretz article, you’d see that, according to Lebanese accounting, the Israelis have already done a stunning amount more in civilian casualties in the last war, so the tit for tat theory applies in spades.
This incident did not spring from the brow of Zeus…
Except that we now know who was right. Thus, you can either (1) believe the people who were right were right by random; or (2) consider whether the people who were right were right for a reason — i.e., that they have a more accurate perception of the world than you.
I’m suggesting that it’s #2. But you clearly have no curiosity in considering it, and I have no power to make you do so.
Wrong Jon.
Again, beyond exhorting you to do so, I don’t have the power to make you pay closer attention to the world around you. You will do whatever you will do.
“The point is, if we were put in the same position as they are in now”
You know, when I was in high school, my German teacher made an argument like this. He said: “if you were in Hitler’s place, you would have done the same thing”.
14 jaws dropped almost in unison. It was both obviously wrong and completely unfounded. Sure, it wasn’t provably wrong, but it wasn’t in any sense provably correct, either.
And the offensive part, that was just icing.
Not comparing you with Hitler, mind you, just comparing you with my German teacher.
I’m curious whether many of the commentariat would ever endorse the use of military power; if we can ever have a war fought clean enought to satisfy their sense of propriety and fair play.
The answer is yes, for me at least, and I’m curious about where the question is coming from. What, on this thread, justifies the supposition that we’re all just bleeding-hearts who don’t get that war is an imprecise sort of thing? I strongly object to the implication in your original post that once Hezbollah violates the laws of war by hiding behind civilians, Israel has a free pass to kill however many of those civilians it thinks it needs to to get at Hezbollah (let’s call this the One War Crime Per Dead Orphan Fallacy). There’s still a very large gap between “Israel is morally obligated to think about how many innocent bystanders are going to be killed when it bombs Target X and take that into account in deciding whether Target X is worth bombing” and “Israel is morally obligated not to bomb Target X if any innocent bystanders will be killed.”
von: true, we can’t know one way or the other. Given the difficulty of interdicting smuggled Katyushas and what I think are the obvious effects this will have on Lebanese support for Hezbollah, I am pessimistic. And the thing is, our government has to make up its mind what to do now, without waiting for hindsight. I think that Israel and the US have made a horrible, horrible mistake. I very much want to be wrong.
(In re smuggling, I did like this comment from the director of GlobalSecurity.org:
““It’s a medium-size rocket, so it’s not the sort of thing you could stuff down your shorts and walk with through a border control point,” Pike said.”
Indeed.)
Actually, Slarti, I think the aplogists for Israel are truer comparisons to your teacher.
Jake
Jon S, me getting the wrong Jon doesn’t make your argument any less problematic in terms of time-travel.
Unless it’s your point that people who got it right about Iraq and WMD have the slightest clue about Israel and Lebanon. It’s a completely different problem.
Next, perhaps, you’ll be touting stock tips?
Jake: “rf, it was clearly intentional.”
Got any evidence?
And, to be sure, your band of correctariat have even less direct information about this situation than they did about Iraq.
“I’m curious whether many of the commentariat would ever endorse the use of military power; if we can ever have a war fought clean enought to satisfy their sense of propriety and fair play.”
Speaking for myself, sure. Actually, on reflection, it’s two questions. (1) Do I ever endorse the use of military force? Yes. Going backwards: Afghanistan, Kosovo, the unfought war in Rwanda, Gulf 1, WW2… sure.
(2) Is there a war so pure that it would satisfy my sense of fair play in the sense that I found nothing to criticize? Who knows. But there are certainly wars in which I find no more to criticize than I’d expect given that human beings, even well-intentioned ones, are fallible. There are also wars in which I think that people did some seriously wrong things, but that that wrongness does not somehow call the entire war into question. I think, not that I want to open this can of worms, that dropping the first atomic bomb on a city, as opposed to some demonstration site without people, was wrong, but not that that somehow made WW2 as a whole wrong.
This is different. And I think you’d find it so too, if you agreed that it involved killing hundreds, displacing nearly a million people, and destroying large chunks of a country in a way that was unlikely to produce any good result. That’s not a matter of “ooh, wars can be nasty sometimes.” It’s more: “WTF are you doing???”
Perhaps, Slarti, Jon S refers only to his understanding of human nature and the small matter of ethics.
Perhaps his insight is not into the specific tactics and circumstances, but rather into the very human beings who have created this horrendous sink hole of war crimes – and into their victims, the Israeli and Lebanese pupulace.
It’s not as if recent wars and invasions have such a great track record, is it?
Jake
I think there was enough data and time to realize going into Iraq was a very bad idea, and I think the other options were clearly better. Israel didn’t have the luxury of a quiet deliberation and clear alternatives.
“It’s not as if recent wars and invasions have such a great track record, is it?”
No, it’s not. But I do find the absence of finger-pointing at those who are most contemptuous of the lives of innocents rather confusing.
And it’s not as if we Americans have anything whatever to do with the clash between Israel and Lebanon. Or is it your contention that Israel is unclean by association?
Slartibartfast:
All right. As I said, you apparently have zero curiosity about how and why you were wrong. If you did have such curiosity, you might discover exactly why some of the people who were right previously probably also have some worthwhile insight on the current situation in Lebanon.
But you don’t have such curiosity. It’s too bad — not just for you, but for this country. It’s extremely damaging to us to have so many people so resolutely uninterested in what you might think would be one of the foremost issues of our time. But there it is.
rf, are you saying that all these wonderful weapons and their great targeting systems are not capable of distinguishing this one building from all others? If that is so, then Israel is no less guilty of indiscriminately targeting civilians than Hezbollah. We know Hezbollah cannot direct the vast majority of their rockets, and so we make such an accusation of indiscriminate targeting, but we accept Israel’s contention that they are NOT indiscriminately targeting civilians because they are using OUR weapons. You can’t have it both ways – the man or woman who pulled the trigger AIMED it at the building containing the UN people. His act was intentional – whether he intended to hit the “UN” is yet another question.
But if he did not intend to hit the UN facility, then it calls into question either Israel’s statements regarding thier ability to aim, or their knowledge of where to aim – either of which means they ARE at the least careless of civilian life in Southern Lebanon.
Jake
It’s not that I have no curiousity so much as that “we were right and you were wrong” does absolutely nothing to satisfy it.
But nice change of subject. Aren’t we on Israel vs. Lebanon, here?
I’m curious whether many of the commentariat would ever endorse the use of military power; if we can ever have a war fought clean enought to satisfy their sense of propriety and fair play.
Endorse
I have to wonder what the hell the Israeli government is allegedly thinking.
I think that the Israeli govt takes Ahmadinejad’s statements about obliterating Israel seriously. Hizballah, the Iranian backed terrorist organization, which has already targeted Israelis worldwide, would be the likely agent for doing that. So they are likely to perceive Hizballah as an existential threat based right next door.
Isn’t there a quote somewhere, Slarti, about he who has the most power has the most responsility? Maybe it’s the one about “To he who is given much, much is expected” or whatever it is.
I cannot reiterate enough times that Hezbollah is WRONG. That Iran is wrong, that Syria is wrong.
And that none of those wrongs excuse Israel’s terrorizing of Lebanon.
Jake
“And that none of those wrongs excuse Israel’s terrorizing of Lebanon.”
Oh, sure. But those wrongs, they invite something in the way of responsibility for the consequences, no?
“rf, are you saying that all these wonderful weapons and their great targeting systems are not capable of distinguishing this one building from all others?”
You don’t seem to understand the concept of distinguishing, but in any case people make mistakes. You just want to hold Israel to some superhuman standard the better to bash it. Lacking the expertise to determine what error rate is to be expected given the situation, the claimed targeting, and the tech, and lacking the data to determine the above and most importantly what the actual error rate is, you can’t make these claims. Well, you can, but I won’t be responding to them.
One way to avoid bombing civilians when you’re going for combatants who use civilians as shields is to opt for a ground invasion. Would invading Lebanon have been better? Would invading Lebanon have caused less outrage than the air campaign? I don’t think so.
Another way to avoid killing civilians when you’re going for combatants who use civilians as shields is to opt for targetted assassination. Israel used that tactic against Hamas, and I think it worked – “worked” meaning the incidence of suicide bombers dropped significantly. But Israel was also roundly condemned for it.
I wonder what tactics would pass muster, or are all military responses considered out of bounds?
Tactically, I prefer assassinations – fewer civilian casualties, less infrastructure damage. But that doesn’t get rid of the rockets or their launchers.
Strategically? If the goal is to make sure Hezbollah can’t launch rockets into Isreal; and if Lebanon’s government is unable to kick Hezbollah out of the country; and if Syria or Iran will simply refill the supply of armaments once Israel withdraws – then strategically the most effective thing to do is raze and depopulate a 10 to 20 mile stretch of borderlands and create a DMZ like the one separating the Koreas. Would that be acceptable?
A negotiated ceasefire would be a wonderful thing – but not if it simply restores the status quo ante, because all that means is that Hezbollah moves back into Southern Lebanon, and keeps playing dare-ems with Israel’s border forces, and keeps launching missiles whenever it likes.
A negotiated ceasefire that permanently stations international troops along the border might – might – prevent re-establishing the status quo ante, but raises a number of questions. Such as, where will the troops come from, what will they be authorized to do, and who will be commanding them?
Excellent comment, CaseyL.
Hey hilzoy, does it violate the posting rules?
Slartibartfast:
Except that bears no relationship to our previous interaction, in which I practically begged you to read any of the numerous sources I mentioned. I spent an enormous amount of time explaining why you should want to learn more, and precisely how you could learn more.
Yet all you heard out of all of that was “we were right and you were wrong.” The non-funny funny part is that this type of selective perception is precisely why you (and others) were wrong in the first place.
But as I say, I obviously can’t make you want to perceive the world around you. I won’t try any more.
Dave L: If the launcher is a big enough threat to Israel to justify killing the orphans to destroy it, that’s one thing, but suggesting that once Hezbollah has put the launcher there the orphans are no longer entitled to consideration is something different. I kind of thought that was part of what the whole proportionality thing was all about.
You would @#%!!**#@ think that, wouldn’t you? I would have, before the Medium Lobster, er, Von’s post showed me the error of my limited thinking.
Hilzoy: This is different. And I think you’d find it so too, if you agreed that it involved killing hundreds, displacing nearly a million people, and destroying large chunks of a country in a way that was unlikely to produce any good result. That’s not a matter of “ooh, wars can be nasty sometimes.” It’s more: “WTF are you doing???”
Exactly. Very well said.
Rilkefan: Israel didn’t have the luxury of a quiet deliberation and clear alternatives.
WTF? “Gosh, we had TWO GUYS KIDNAPPED, so we must IMMEDIATELY launch a MASSIVE ATTACK ON BEIRUT”???????????????
The poverty of insufficient deliberation:
Israel’s military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hezbollah militants is unfolding according to a plan finalized more than a year ago.
In the years since Israel ended its military occupation of southern Lebanon, it watched warily as Hezbollah built up its military presence in the region. When Hezbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli soldiers last week, the Israeli military was ready to react almost instantly.
“Of all of Israel’s wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared,” said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. “In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, when it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles and attacking Israel. By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we’re seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it’s been simulated and rehearsed across the board.”
I guess if it hadn’t been for the kidnappings, Israel would’ve had to wait for a Hezbollah militant to double-park or something.
“One way to avoid bombing civilians when you’re going for combatants who use civilians as shields is to opt for a ground invasion.”
But, as we’ve re-learned, ground taken must be defended. And civilians as human shields, as we’ve re-learned, has its own downsides in the context of a ground invasion.
No, I think Israel’s tactics are just about the only tactics of force that could possibly have some positive result: they’ve cut off Hizbollah’s supply of rockets. Hizbollah can probably resupply its small arms, but that’s not of much concern to Israel.
Francis may get his wish.
I think it is too short sighted to focus on the issue of whether or not Isreal should have do this or to what extent and who killed the most civilians etc. We need to be thinking about what we wish for the Middle East in the long run, two or three generations down the line.
Both sides in the Middle East(pro-Isreal/anti-Palestine and pro-Palestine/ anti-Isreal) say the same things and behave the same way:
“It’s all your fault. You started it. I’ll stop but only after you do. You hit me first. You hit me harder. You got your friends to hit me. I’m going to beat you up so bad you won’t be able to hit me back.”
A pox on all their houses. Our only participation should be to support negotiations for peace. Otherwise we shouldn’t support any side. . It may very well be that someday Iran will decide that they don’t mind being nuked back so they go ahead and nuke Tel Aviv. I can’t imagine why anyone would think this attack on Lebanese territoy would prevent it. It’s just the latest round in the cycle of violence. We need to be looking for ways to break the cycle, not contribute by arguing about who is more to blame or who is right this time.
The WW2 analogy doesn’t work because in WW2 there were clear aggressors and those clearly aggressed against. In this situation both Palestine and Isreal have a right to exist and the fighting will continue until the blame game stops.
“But as I say, I obviously can’t make you want to perceive the world around you. I won’t try any more.”
That’s just as well, as you’ve obviously long since decided to completely ignore anything I’ve had to say in response.
Which, possibly, is the very definition of incurious.
“I guess if it hadn’t been for the kidnappings” – and killings. Note that there was a very new govt in power, dealing with another crisis – they had the option of not following this plan, but not a space for calm deliberation. That is, they could not have thought about it for a month then gone in. That is, the comparison to Iraq war is rather poor.
“to what it considered a provocation” – that’s quite something.
i now know the sound that 15 ships make passing in the night. It’s called this thread.
Tactics: this group will not come to consensus on the morality of the means by which Israel is waging this war. Some are focused on Israel’s mistakes and some are focused on Hezbollah’s noncompliance with Western rules of war.
Strategy: this bit the dust early. There was little follow up on why Von believes this war to be a strategic mistake.
Bad analogies: The Pentagon? The building’s enormous and on the wrong side of the river.
Gary Farber sawing off his own leg? Hil, that was a little wacky even for me.
It’s late in the day here in So.Cal. and we’ve been bickering all day (beats working, i guess). But I’ll try to inject a new idea nevertheless:
Israel, like the US, has become casualty-adverse.
The overemphasis on air power, the obsessive reporting of each casualty … these are hallmarks of American-style war making, in Bosnia, Somalia and GWII.
And while I’m in no hurry to see either Americans or Israelis sent to useless deaths, if either country is going to use its armed forces, it might as well recognize that being excessively risk averse can result in strategic defeat.
‘”It’s all your fault. You started it. I’ll stop but only after you do.”‘
Israel just gave up Gaza, and was planning on giving up 90% of the West Bank in exchange for nothing. They haven’t been the ones firing rockets into neighboring territories. They do a lot of regrettable and even awful things, but I don’t think “pox on both sides” captures the situation well.
Francis, I saw you pass by in the evening.
I am very appreciative of the latest Isreali initiatives and I hope they stick to them because that sort of initiative is really the only way forward.
Ok, way OT:
I’m juicing right now, not that that has anything to do with anything at all, except that it might explain the gap in my responses.
So, look: I think Gary Farber has made (and has continued to make) some points that we might all take to heart. Perhaps especially me. Those points being (not trying to put words in Gary’s mouth; just attempting a shorter-): there’s no shortage of opinion on the current goings-on in Lebanon. There is, however, much less in the way of informed, thoughtful opinion. So here’s my view on that: lacking an informed opinion, maybe we all ought to step back and consider that the other guys have a point. And then think on that. And then think on it some more. And, possibly much later, to speak those considered thoughts.
And, way, WAY OT, if Gary hasn’t gotten an invitation to post here, he certainly ought to. I know Gary’s got his own blog, and he probably doesn’t need yet another password to remember, but I (perhaps mistakenly) think Gary will get more exposure here than there. Certainly he’ll prompt more discussion. I think Gary’s knowledge of history, especially in the context of the current happenings in Lebanon, will be of great use.
And of course there’s the right/left imbalance to consider, but I think that’s tertiary at best.
Now, back to the question of how much tomato is too much.
rf, the UN had specific assurances that their facilities would NOT BE BOMBED. Yet they were. That is all I am saying is in any way factual, but from that I infer several things about Israel’s intent or their capabilities.
You can’t both argue that they are not indiscriminately bombing Lebanon because their targeting and target knowledge is so good and at the same time say no foul when they bomb a facility they said they would not. Something has to give, and maybe it is simply human error – in which case, how much OTHER human error is there?
Jake
“Down that road attacks on Israeli citizens could be justified because, due to the widespread (compulsory?) military service any given civilian may be a reservist, may have been military, or may soon be military.”
Down the road?
Phil,
“You’re picking nits here. If I can see it from an office or apartment window it’s in my goddamned neighborhood. I can walk to the Pentagon from my office, Sebastian; I hardly need you to describe to me where it is and isn’t located.”
I don’t understand your point at all. So what if it is “in your neighborhood”? When you see a news report saying that the building next to a Hezbollah building got damaged are you picturing the Macy’s 1/4 mile away?
Jake, “Except – the rockets keep coming, Hezbollah hasn’t given up”
It is less than two weeks since Israel started. Surely no-one expected a magic anti-rocket wand to be waved and everything ceases immediately?
Hilzoy,
“I think, not that I want to open this can of worms, that dropping the first atomic bomb on a city, as opposed to some demonstration site without people, was wrong, but not that that somehow made WW2 as a whole wrong.
This is different. And I think you’d find it so too, if you agreed that it involved killing hundreds, displacing nearly a million people, and destroying large chunks of a country in a way that was unlikely to produce any good result.”
There were a large number of times when it was not at all clear that WWII was going to have any good result, and certainly not as good a result as it did have.
“rf, are you saying that all these wonderful weapons and their great targeting systems are not capable of distinguishing this one building from all others? If that is so, then Israel is no less guilty of indiscriminately targeting civilians than Hezbollah.”
Jake there is a good difference between being able to target but sometimes missing (Israeli case) and not being able to target any closer than “somewhere in the city” (Hezbollah case). Even with an actual gun it is the case that you sometimes miss. If Israel is to be criticized on that basis, no modern war can ever be just.
There is, however, much less in the way of informed, thoughtful opinion.
the more blogs and op-eds i read, the less i find value in “thoughtful opinion”. the only opinions that actually matter a single bit anywhere in the world are those of the people in power; everyone else is pretending. stock up on lofty ideals and logical conclusions, then see how much good any them do when the people in power go and do what they do. doesn’t it ever bother any of you that everything on political blogs is simply complaints about what has already happened, and the people that made it happen ?
this is the same as arguing about sports statistics. none of us play in the big leauges; the coaches and players don’t know we exist and wouldn’t listen to us if they did. and yet, day after day… amateur coaches and monday morning quarterbacks pretend to tell the players what they should have done.
time for a long break
“You can’t both argue that they are not indiscriminately bombing Lebanon because their targeting and target knowledge is so good and at the same time say no foul when they bomb a facility they said they would not.”
Jake, you really need to use the good terminology available here. When you say ‘bomb’ you need to decide if you mean “target” or “hit”. The verb “to bomb” suggests targeting, but I’m not sure you mean it.
Ok, what I am trying to get my mind around is the collapse of the nation-state. There is no conceivable tolerable Iraq or Lebanon or Palestine that will have the monopoly on violence that defines a nation-state and makes it possible to deal with as a unified political entity. Iran with its factions and uncertainty about who is controlling what military assets is more the future than the Iran of Pahlavi or the Egypt of Nasser.
That is why these are desperate losses on the part of the US and Israel. There are trying to maintain a structure, a mindset, a theorey of int’l relations that defines their sense of nationa security. Syria, Saddam, Pakistan, SA, Iran, whomever must be responsible for al-Qaeda and terrorism. We can barely deal with it otherwise, or will have to change to deal with it in ways we will find very uncomfortable. The collapse of Doha and Bretton Woods I & II there are many indications that the old model of nation-states is collapsing.
With the questionable elections, the partisan, even isolated policy of the unitary executive, the various splits with each political party, I no longer feel the US is anywhere near the unified nation it was in my youth. We may be one or two elections away from looking like Iraq, with much less violence.
Er, von, your account doesn’t seem to allow room for the existence of Pol Pot, whose moment came after the US capitulation in Vietnam, and who was eventually driven from office by our Vietnamese enemies.
Speculatively, I think there’s at least room to wonder whether a more communist Asia, with fewer fixed battle lines running hither and thither, might have developed better and in the end have collapsed more like the Warsaw Pact. Certainly I think there’s room for some outcomes to have been better than what we got, along with the ones that would have been much worse.
As for the current situation…
I think it would be enormously to Israel’s gain to make much more focused attacks on suspected targets, with ground forces and all. Yes, they would lose more soldiers. But I think that any Israeli soldier’s life saved now will cost more, maybe many more, other Israeli soldiers’ lives in the months and years ahead in this round of war. It’s bad strategy, both in terms of overall progress toward the goal of reducing Hezbollah’s ability to attack Israel and in terms of Israel’s ability to persuade others and win their support for diplomatic and economic matters.
I respect air power and am glad it’s in the modern arsenal of war. I don’t think that it’s the right primary weapon for this kind of operation. I’m also once again surprised at the really howlingly bad judgments on human nature and behavior implicit in some of the decisions about the Israeli response, as I was about a lot of aspects of the US’s war and occupation in Iraq. I retain some capacity for surprise, it seems.
Bob, I find myself agreeing with you a lot more than I’d like about a lot of this. In the spirit mutual help for sharpening the speculative senses, I’d like to recommend two science fiction novels, in case you haven’t read them:
Snow Crash, by Neal Stephenson, is a high-energy riff through a future that seems perilously close now, with just about all aspects of life franchised.
When Gravity Fails, by George Alec Effinger, is set farther ahead and looks at one possible, somewhat peaceful post-national future. It’s out of print now, but places like Powell’s often have used copies for sale cheap.
I assume that at least in some cases Israel probably is trying to hurt the civilian population. I think this is true because Israel, like other Western democracies, has a really poor human rights record in wartime situations, which in their case amounts to most of their history. Which is not to say that dictatorships have a good record, but only that I don’t find it shocking to contemplate that Western democracies sometimes target civilians and lie about it. The US has done it directly and by proxy over and over again. The French human rights record is appalling. The record of the British is pretty bad from what little I know. I wouldn’t expect us to behave better than Israel has in a similar situation. If anything, we’d probably be worse. I do not mean this as a compliment to Israel.
My claims about Israel’s poor record come from having my mind poisoned by books about Lebanon by Robert Fisk and Jonathan Randal (the latter a Washington Post reporter) and books about Israel by various people, some of them Israeli, and from reading human rights reports from B’Tselem, HRW, and Amnesty International. Plus there was that eyewitness account by NYT reporter Chris Hedges who saw IDF soldiers shooting Palestinian children for sport.
The 1982 war was impressively bloody. You have to go pretty far to get an instinctive Western sycophant like Thomas Friedman to accuse your military of indiscriminate attacks. Jonathan Randal and I think Fisk as well report that the Israelis tried to assassinate Arafat by bombing any building where he was reported to be. One flattened building contained 200 dead and wounded civilians. That was an impressive display of compassion by both Arafat and the Israeli air force. Not to be outdone, according to Bob Woodward’s “Veil” the US tried to assassinate a Shiite terrorist leader with a car bomb in the mid-80’s. We missed, but 80 civilians died. I think Hezbollah should do as we say, not as we do.
Those who decry Israel’s response as disproportionate are really saying that Israel’s end — stopping Hizbollah’s rocket attacks — is improper.
This is bunk, and its the core of your point. Those who decry the disproportionate response don’t see what bombing airports, bridges and numerous other civilian areas has to do with attacking Hezbollah or ending rocket attacks. Please address the actual issue concerning the specifics of what makes the response disproportionate. Then we can have an intelligent discussion about what is wrong with this Israeli war.
The scope of this war means that the Israeli goal is to destabilize the existing Lebanese government, and the it must think it profits from such a circumstance. I don’t see the logic of it, and it certainly is not in the US interest to support this terror war.
I should be clear that atrocities alluded to in my previous post were before the current round of killing.
In the current bombing, if Israel were trying to minimize civilian casualties they wouldn’t be bombing Beirut neighborhoods. And they wouldn’t be using cluster munitions, as Human Rights Watch claims they are. It’s always possible that a country could change its earlier pattern of behavior, but reading about the current war reminds me a lot of what I’ve read about the 1982 invasion, except this one seems smaller in scale so far.
Interesting fact, by the way, if a little off-topic–according to Iraq Body Count, the number of civilians reported killed by coalition forces in Iraq during the third year of occupation was 370. Presumably this means we’re getting a huge undercount, which ought to be disturbing. Alternatively, the US is literally orders of magnitude better at fighting guerillas than the IDF, if the idea is to kill the guerillas and not kill civilians, because the Brookings Institute claims we’re capturing or killing roughly 20,000 insurgents per year. Or maybe the US forces in Iraq did almost nothing in terms of counterinsurgency warfare in March 2005-2006 and that’s why the number of civilians reported to have died at our hands in one year amounts to the number killed in Lebanon in about 10 days. It’d be nice if we actually could tell from press accounts what our forces have been doing in Iraq, but I don’t think we can. Though these days the Iraq-on-Iraq violence probably far outweighs ours (and everything happening in Lebanon.)
End of one paragraph threadjack.
“I’d like to recommend two science fiction novels, in case you haven’t read them:”
Bruce, the Newberry post linked above at 6:46 focuses on Umberto Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum in depth. He also like D F Wallace’s Infinite Jest and Rushdie. Newberry does mention Stephenson, not flatteringly:
“Eco, Wallace and Rushdie remain on bookshelves because they are the great elaborators in narrative of the post-modern floating opera in its most polished forms, building on the moments of Barthes, Pynchon.
But their limits are seen in that since these epochcryphal labors, they have not produced other works which have had the lasting and shattering impact of their signature works. Soon there afterwards the easy kitschification of Neal Stephanson would take over the same territory, presuppose a pseudo-Darwininan answer, in the form of Snow Crash to the question of what keeps the free play of memes and factoids from descending into intellectual grey goo. Anyone slogging through his Baroque series knows that whatever principle Stephanson thought to apply, it isn’t working.” …Newberry
…
Incidentally, the collapse of the nation-state, besides convulsing the right with horror, will not please the left, like Katherine & Hilzoy. The Hague, Geneva, and Torture Conventions have just become irrelevant. Addington may get to disappear his “combatants without a liscense”, but it is also obvious that a uniform no longer grants a usable legitimacy in a war zone. Just the muscle of a bigger group of thugs.
Without that legitimacy, the purpose of the protocols breaks down.
I have said before we have entered lawless times. Behold.
Sorry End italics
Yechh Test
Plus there was that eyewitness account by NYT reporter Chris Hedges who saw IDF soldiers shooting Palestinian children for sport.
Hey, look, it’s the entire Israeli/Palestinian issue in microcosm. Based on my recollection of Hedges’ report, there are good reasons to be skeptical of it, but in doing a little Googling trying to dig up more information on it I rapidly came to the conclusion that there is no such thing as an even-handed discussion of the topic. I’d say “you really shouldn’t refer to Hedges’ report as if it were incontrovertibly true”, but, well, that just gets us back to where we started.
Italics NO!!!! 🙂
In all the horror of the war, everybody seems to be missing the Israel’s cold-blooded decision, supported by the US, to destroy that nice new democracy that we all cheered when they expelled the Syrians.
I cannot see how it is in anyone but Hezbollah’s interest to have a failed state in Lebanon rather than a democratic and relatively stable one (even if potentially hostile to Israel and the US). Like the 1982 invasion, this is worse than a crime (though it is certainly that) – it is a mistake.
As for Israeli blood-thirstiness, I visited the place a few years ago and was deeply shocked by the attitudes I encountered. They’re a product of a 50 year state of siege, but that is an explanation not an excuse. Reports of Israeli atrocities have been much more credible in my eyes since then.
von: In fact, Vietnam — a tactical loss — likely was a strategic win. There had been a serious effort by China and Russia to export communism to SE Asia. The costs inflicted by Korea and Vietnam stopped them.
The peoples of Burma, Laos and Cambodia — among myriad others — would certainly disagree with you there.
Bob, I think Newberry sells Snow Crash short. Stephenson’s obviously getting doctrinaire with the passage of time, but that book is full of the human cost of its system and doesn’t strike me then or now as anything like a real endorsement of it.
“As for Israeli blood-thirstiness”
You might want to choose a different description – this one has bad associations going back centuries.
“…anything like a real endorsement of it.”
Realize that Newberry is some kind of optimist, much more than I. My guess is that he found “Snow Crash” unduly defeatist and pessimistic.
“If promiscuous misconnectivity of symbols [the vast Syrian-Ianian terrorist conspiracy, for example …RM] is the post-modern illness, and the celluar pyramids the symptom, then it is in unsustainable extraction that the fever lies. The converse is a faith in the power of connection – people become more flexible, not more encrusted as they connect, and it social order is not the hermeneutic coven, but the adhocratic, and ultimately participatory democratic forms which have their visible part on the blogs, but their active part through out the society.”
I don’t know for certain what Bushco, Israel, and the Neo-cons think they are doing in the middle east, but by their own accounts it appears they are trying to “inspire” or frighten the locals into forming some new all-encompassing uberstructural attitude inimical to terrorism and extremist Islamism. I think they at least now recognize that their enemies enjoy a certain amount of base support, so it is simply not a matter of replacing dictators and leaders. Like GWB and Republicans, they see the structure as both democratic and heirarchical. They want the Palestinians, Iraqis, and Lebanese to freely choose the right kind of leaders.
The problem is that the heirarchy really isn’t there, and a lust for heirarchy can’t be imposed. Newberry diagnoses this paranoia as seeing patterns that don’t exist because the patterns that do exist are not controllable by those who are comforted by heirarchies.
I tend to connect too much, but the DLC is to the netroots as Bushco & Neocons is to the ME. The Lieberman outrage is about incomprehension and the loss of control.
A friend of mine thinks that the Bush-Cheney crew are having a Berthold Brecht passage: “The people have lost the confidence of the government; the government has decided to dissolve the people, and to appoint another one.” It’s much the same as the apocalyptic urge that strucks many tyrants who find their grand designs unwelcome, except these folks are still roaring along.
Now Israel wants a 2km wide buffer zone. All these deaths, both Lebanese and Israeli, and they want a 2km buffer zone? Most of Hezbollah’s rockets have a fairly short rangem, but one still greater than 2km.
Can anyone say “panic”? Israel badly miscalculated, and now they are offering up what amounts to a face saving cease fire.
Hezbollah fired something approaching 1000 rockets, which rockets killed something approaching 30 people. If that ratio of rockets to murders holds, then ALL of Hezbollah’s rockets would have murdered something less than 400 Israelis.
This Israeli attack has already killed more than 400 total, Israeli and Lebanese together. Even on the principle that Israel has a right to protect against even the possibility of future attack (which, in US law, you aren’t allowed – people are murdered all the time by perps against whom they have restraining orders – the victims lives would have been saved had only the law allowed us to shoot the perp before he murdered the victim) this is a bad trade. Were I Olmert I too would be seeking any way out possible. Two more weeks of this and Israel will have dug a hole from which it will never emerge.
All this because of rockets from Iran and Syria. We can see just how dangerous the rockets are – not very, compared at least to the Israeli IDF.
I don’t know whether or not Iran is an existential threat to Israel, but I am very sure those rockets were not.
And a final note – apparently Hezbollah has a few rockets that could reach Tel Aviv. Those have not been used. It seems that Hezbollah, at least, has some sense of proportion – or consequences. Either way, they at least are thinking.
They are also winning the PR battle.
Jake
This is sounding a lot like the whole torture debate to me. There seems to be one camp that believes killing civilians (torture) is either not evil (they chose to stay, they support Hezbollah, they might be Hezbollah members, they started it) or it is proportionately evil and/or the only option and therefore right (excusable). On the other side there are people who believes killing civilians (torture) should never be done and is always wrong, and people who believe it may be sometimes necessary but it’s still evil and should be judged as such (it shouldn’t be excused or legalized).
I find myself on the latter side as in the torture debate. What Israel is doing may be necessary but it’s wrong, and there have to be consequences grave enough to ensure they and others won’t choose to do it again unless they’re abolutely certain it’s the only way to further their cause, and their cause is sufficiently important to them.
Actually the same goes for Hezbollah. What they’re doing is wrong, but I’m not sure they have any other choice (not counting getting obliterated in a legitimate war as a choice).
Most of Hezbollah’s rockets have a fairly short rangem, but one still greater than 2km.
And they’re diddling around in a small area probably nowhere near where the rockets that threaten Haifa are. Whatever they had as objectives, they were betting on the air war.
If someone attacks you, there’s a point at which your response crosses a line and stops being mere self-defense and becomes a horror of its own.
Wrong. You honor the threat. You don’t stop until you wipe it out. Do you prescribe a half dose of chemo when you are dealing with a cancer? Do you want the surgeon to remove half of your inflamed appendix?
Soldiers are expected to give their life for their country. What does a country owe them in return? Is this about 2 soldiers? Of course not – it is about the almost daily attacks over many years. But as a pretext it sits very nicely with me…
How about 241 dead Marines in 1983? We should not just be supplying arms in this war – we should be directly involved. Is 23 years too long to wait for payback? I revere RR – but withdrawing from Lebanon then was a huge mistake, the biggest of his presidency.
The ME has been a festering boil on the armpit of the world for decades – it is time to settle it. We should directly help Israel in Lebanon, and use this opportunity to settle things with Syria and Iran both. The time has passed for half-baked “peace” treaties that only one side honors and roadmaps to hell. Get this crap over with once and for all.
book is full of the human cost of its system and doesn’t strike me then or now as anything like a real endorsement of it
Sure, anyone who’d actually read it would come to that conclusion. It’s absolutely clear to me that Stephenson invented this extrapolation of the present, and then spent the entire book looking at it askance. If you doubt this, try reading Zodiac.
They are also winning the PR battle
I think it’s worth spending some time in considering why this is so. My take is that it all connects back to Israel’s right to exist and defend itself. And to what degree Lebanon ought to be (and ought to have been) actively suppressing the Hizbollah attacks.
By “ought to be”, I mean that it’s absolutely incumbent on a state to prevent its population from waging war on another state, unless it is in fact at war with that other state. So I think Bob McManus’ comment upthread about the death of the nation-state is particularly apt, but I think it’s dying because we (the world) aren’t holding it to be responsible for things that occur within its boundaries.
So, to turn the whole U.S./Canada thing around, if some extremist group in the US were attacking civilians in Canada, it’d be absolutely incumbent on the US to address the problem, and address it promptly. And if we didn’t do that, it’d be within Canada’s rights to take them out. If we actually declined to take action, it might even be within Canada’s rights to declare war on us. This gets into legalities of which I’m completely ignorant, though.
Anyway, something to consider.
Slarti,
“So, to turn the whole U.S./Canada thing around, if some extremist group in the US were attacking civilians in Canada, it’d be absolutely incumbent on the US to address the problem, and address it promptly. And if we didn’t do that, it’d be within Canada’s rights to take them out. If we actually declined to take action, it might even be within Canada’s rights to declare war on us.”
Exactly. I’ve still not seen anyone refute the precedent of the US invading Mexico to capture Pancho Villa, even though I’ve posted it twice now in other threads.
Jake,
“And a final note – apparently Hezbollah has a few rockets that could reach Tel Aviv. Those have not been used. It seems that Hezbollah, at least, has some sense of proportion – or consequences. Either way, they at least are thinking.”
Or their masters are thinking. I am guessing that Assad doesn’t want his residence to get buzzed again. Or worse.
Get this crap over with once and for all.
this statement fills me with horror.
francis,
What’s so horrible about getting rid of terrorists once and for all?
What’s so horrible about getting rid of terrorists once and for all?
Because that statement’s been made, time and time again, and the same tactics used, time and time again. It’s gotten a zombie-like existence.
because the only way to prevent a person from hating you is to kill him.
OCSteve apparently wants to invade and occupy, with a force large enough to bring peace and security, Lebanon, Syria and Iran (oh, and Iraq).
Alternatively, OCSteve wants to kill a significant percentage of the adult male population of those countries.
so, instead of using nauseatingly vague and cutesy language that is far too evocative of a Final Solution, I’d prefer that people be honest about their goals. what, exactly, does solving the ME problem “once and for all” entail?
gwang,
“Because that statement’s been made, time and time again, and the same tactics used, time and time again. ”
By Israel? What should the statement be then? “Let’s not get rid of the terorrists once and for all”?
Francis,
“Alternatively, OCSteve wants to kill a significant percentage of the adult male population of those countries.”
I am guessing that killing would involve combatants, so no, that wouldn’t qualify as genocide.
“so, instead of using nauseatingly vague and cutesy language that is far too evocative of a Final Solution,”
Cheap trick right there. Final Solution was not about killing combatants on the battlefield, was it?
“does solving the ME problem “once and for all” entail?”
I think Israel should stop giving in to the “international pressure” and not agree to any more ceasefires which are merely ways for the terrorists to regroup and resupply.
that, Stan LS, is a perfect strawman argument.
let’s try this again.
1. You and OCSteve apparently desire to solve the ME Problem “once and for all”.
2. I pointed out that this language is evocative of genocide.
3. In a neat rhetorical trick which might be a little more persuasive if it weren’t used about a million times a day on blogs, you completely misrepresent what i wrote.
3a. Here’s a tip. If you kill a significant percentage of the adult male population of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran (ie, those who are now radicalized and those who will become radicalized by your various rounds of killing), you will be killing a LOT more than just combatants.
4. And your answer to the basic question of what “once and for all” means was two things that Israel shouldn’t do.
well, duh. There’s an infinite list of things that both the US and Israel should Not do to solve problems in the ME.
but since you’re the one, Stan LS, buying into the idea of permanent solutions, i’m naturally curious as to what you think the affirmative steps should be.
1. Yes, I guess we oppose it going on forever.
2. I don’t see it that way.
3. No tricks
3a. “If”? That whiffs of a strawman. “If you molest children…”. We are talking strictly combatants.
“buying into the idea of permanent solutions”
The problem with Hitler was permanently solved, wasn’t it? Too bad it wasn’t done in the 1930’s.
I think Israel should root out the Hezbollah and put Syria and Iran on notice that they no longer can fight their proxy war against Israel without repercussion. THe ME conflict went on for this long precisely because of the dozens of useless ceasefires which do nothing but prolong the fighting in the long term.
OCSteve: “Wrong. You honor the threat. You don’t stop until you wipe it out. Do you prescribe a half dose of chemo when you are dealing with a cancer? Do you want the surgeon to remove half of your inflamed appendix?”
According to me, there is no way to “wipe it out” short of either exterminating populations or declaring war on Iran and Syria. In either case, you would end up killing untold numbers of people who bear no responsibility for this, and creating a nightmare the likes of which it’s hard to imagine.
Some solutions have no quick fixes.
Slarti: I think it is incumbent on states to police their own territories. The problem is that not all states have the capacity to do this. Lebanon in particular did not, nor (frankly) do I see how it could have been expected to acquire it between the time it got its independence and now. I think that we, as well as other countries, including Israel, could have done a lot more to help it, but we didn’t.
Hezbollah is stronger than the Lebanese army. They would have defeated it in battle, had the government engaged it militarily. I don’t see how the Lebanese government could have disarmed Hezbollah between when the Syrians left and now.
One thing that I think is a constant with this administration is that they systematically underestimate the importance of nations having a monopoly of force within their own borders. Either that, or they expect a monopoly of force to appear spontaneously, as though setting up something called a government automatically conferred it. It does not. That’s why militias were always a serious threat in Iraq, why we badly needed to help the Afghan government assert itself over the entire country, and why it’s not nearly enough just to clap when the Lebanese throw out their occupiers. (When I lived in Israel, there were no license plates in Lebanon, because no one had the power to enforce their use. And that was after Fatah had been kicked out.)
And StanLS: “We are talking strictly combatants.”
You may be talking strictly combatants, but it will not be strictly combatants who die, any more than it’s strictly combatants who are dying now.
As I said earlier (or on the last thread?), I don’t think that any possibility of civilian casualties makes war unjustifiable. But neither do I think that any number of civilian casualties — any at all — is OK as long as you’re aiming at combatants. Any of the courses of action that would “solve” this problem permanently would in fact lead to a large number of civilian deaths. We can debate whether that number is too large or not; but we shouldn’t pretend that it is zero, unless we’re discussing a war in an alternate universe in which Hezbollah members are always correctly identified, mistakes are never made, and weapons are so smart that there is no collateral damage.
Either that, or they expect a monopoly of force to appear spontaneously, as though setting up something called a government automatically conferred it.
Very good. We destroyed the Iraqi gov’t, then expected order to spontaneously arise, like everyone had been studying Hayek in Arabic translation.
This sort of problem is one rationale for tolerating authoritarian despots. You can’t have a democracy without a monopoly of force’s being well-established. From there maybe you can gradually move on to the rule of law (assuming despots and not tyrants like Saddam), and from there to democracy. I am very skeptical whether one can start with democracy and try to do the rest later.
I’m always stunned by the level of thinking indicated by the belief that there are a finite number of terrorist, and that the problem will simply go away, with no messy reprecussions, if you simply kill them all.
I mean, we saw this flawed thinking again and again during the Iraq insurgency.
C’mon guys, even mice have shown a tendency to learn from experience.
We used the first order, then democracy argument consistently during the Cold War: Yes, we’re supporting military dictatorships, but we’ll reform them later, whereas the Commies will never reform unless it’s at gunpoint!
Didn’t work then, doubt it’ll work now. For one thing, we’ve never had the stomach to actually push our client despots to embrace democracy (which might mean a government that doesn’t do what we want). We supported Marcos in the Philippines long after the country wanted him gone, and Noriega and Saddam both outlasted the USSR.
And I’m not sure it’s that easy to distinguish despots from tyrants (other than “well, he’s working for us, guess he’s a despot”).
“Exactly. I’ve still not seen anyone refute the precedent of the US invading Mexico to capture Pancho Villa, even though I’ve posted it twice now in other threads.”
I saw you mention this once, dantheman, and don’t know enough about the details to say for sure, but going on what I think you said, Pancho Villa invaded the US and killed maybe dozens of US civilians and then we sent in General Pershing and killed hundreds of Mexican civilians. If that’s how it went, then we were dead wrong. Going in to catch a bandit killer was defensible, but not whatever actions we took if it led to that many deaths. I don’t know the history. (Google is a few clicks away, but I’ll do it later.)
There are all kinds of parallels to the Israeli situation in American history, mostly having to do with the Native Americans, and to my mind most of them reflect badly on both America and Israel. And on Native Americans and Palestinians and Lebanese, since I don’t think atrocities are defensible no matter what the cause.
Donald,
More or less accurate on facts, other than Wikipedia puts the number of dead Americans as “several”. I’ll disagree with you on the “dead wrong” part, though.
It seems to me completely obvious that both sides here have done something very wrong and that both sides must stop immediately. I really wonder about the moral competence of anyone who thinks otherwise. Most people who think Israel should not stop at all have managed to mentally block out the 4 million Lebanese and the impact of these actions on their lives: they have become hostages, in effect.
Having said that, I actually think talking about right and wrong is doing more harm than good here. Easy to build an argument, ignoring salient moral facts, that the Israelis are justified in responding because they were attacked. Most conversation starts from the situation and then we proceed to ask ourselves: who is permitted to do what? I will focus on the innocent Lebanese. Another person will focus on Iranian sponsorship of Hezbollah (which makes all of this offensive rosier in that mental frame because it is then an action just between states). This just gets us nowhere. But the irony is that both I and my imaginary interlocutor here have the same goals: disarming Hezbollah, peace in Lebanon, peace in northern Israel. Wouldn’t it be better if we just started our conversation from the endpoint we wanted to reach, where at least there is some common ground, and move backwards to the means by which we can achieve these ends?
The salient question from my point of view is not whether Israel has the right to pursue Hezbollah, but whether their strategy here will be effective. They are not simply at liberty to choose what ever strategy they would like, with a disregard for weighing the effectiveness of that strategy against the civilian mayhem, displacement, and that they will cause by it.
If Lebanon desires to disarm Hezbollah, but cannot do so, why has it not asked someone for help?
If Lebanon desires to disarm Hezbollah, but cannot do so, why has it not asked someone for help?
Probably because they understand that transforming Hezbollah from a military organization to a political one requires a political solution, not a military one. A military solution from the Lebanese government would probably return the country to rule-by-militia, whereas a military solution has suddenly catapulted Hezbollah into a David vs Goliath role that will undoubtably increase its fortunes both in Lebanon and across the Arab world.
Sebastian: who?
And do remember that there was 15 years of civil war in Lebanon, between parties with the same ethnic allegiances. So, as a Lebanese politician would you call for outside help to disarm a paramilitary widely regarded by half your population as having defended the country against Israel and widely despised by the other half? Would you escalate hostilities in that way, risking an armed confrontation? Or would you try to resolve the problem in as quiet a manner as possible, hoping that the integration of Hezbollah is a Lebanese politics leads to their gradual moderation? If you do decide to call in a foreign power, realize that you will face insurrection within your own Lebanese army. The anti-Syrian PM who never proposed anything so drastic was assassinated last year. Are you going to stick your neck out? And whom would you turn to? The Americans? The Israelis? The Sunni Arab states are not going to confront Shia fundamentalism for you. So tell me, Sebastian, just what do you propose?
Interesting, but not well-sourced:
So I believe you are telling me that the government of Lebanon does not want (in any politically viable sense of the word ‘want’) to disarm Hezbollah. Is that correct?
Also, would you please explain why the integration of Hezbollah into the government is likely to lead to Hezbollah’s moderation rather than the government’s radicalization?
I wonder why this is not getting much play:
It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of four UN positions at Alma ash Shab, Tibnin, Brashit, and At Tiri. All UNIFIL positions remain occupied and maintained by the troops.
From UN’s press release no less!
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr010.pdf
So I believe you are telling me that the government of Lebanon does not want (in any politically viable sense of the word ‘want’) to disarm Hezbollah. Is that correct?
Not sure if that’s addressed to me or not. If so, then no, that is not correct.
Also, would you please explain why the integration of Hezbollah into the government is likely to lead to Hezbollah’s moderation rather than the government’s radicalization?
Because radicalization is a product of conflict, not one of comprimise.
Sebastian: Not sure what you mean by a “politically viable” sense of want. I’m quite sure that they would want it dearly. But you tell me how they can have it without getting their heads cut off?
Your point about radicalization is well taken. I meant only to suggest that it could go that way. Quite correct to say that it could go the other way. I’m just thinking from the point of view of an anti-Hezbollah Lebanese politician. Her best hope might be that radicalization leads to moderation.
It was addressed to Ara.
“Because radicalization is a product of conflict, not one of comprimise.”
Conflict with whom?
Compromise with whom?
Couldn’t Hezbollah compromise with the government of Lebanon in order to further the conflict against Israel?
Furthermore it seems almost ridiculous to believe that the power of “compromise” between radical groups and mainstream governments works ONLY to moderate the radical group. What is the government giving the radical group in order to induce this change? It seems likely they will have to become more radical in order to “compromise”.
Sebastian: you are diverting attention away from the question which you first proposed to attack something which is not really anything I am defending, but rather something that I am claiming a Lebanese politician might prefer to gamble on.
And incidentally you are oversimplifying. It really depends on how much more radicalized the Lebanese government would become. Not all radicals are made the same. I’m pretty sure Israel would prefer a slightly more radical Lebanese government in exchange for the elimination of the completely radical paramilitary which the government has no control over, for example. Obviously, at some level of radicalization, you are worse off with the radical government. It’s just a matter of degree and preferences and what you can accomplish.
Sebastian, obviously I haven’t been clear.
The process of radicalization occurs when individuals are exposed to conflict or extreme conditions without recourse to prevent it. For example, a pacifist may change his or her mind if you smack them hard. Or having a family member killed by a bomb may drive a young man from moderation to seeking revenge.
The opposite occurs when people are given choices, when they have the opportunity and resources to influence their own lives, and when they are able to go about their lives with a sense of pride and honour.
This, to my mind, is what gives democratic societies their strength. We have a sense of self-determination and we feel that we have the space to comprimise (for example, having to put up with an idiot in charge of your government for a year or two, if you live in Canada).
De-radicalizing a significant portion of your population is necessary in order to have democracy. Simply shooting all the radicals will cause friends and family members of the deceased to go from moderate to radical, so that doesn’t work.
In the case of Lebanon, Hezbollah has a great deal of popular support because it is source of pride and strength for a significant segment of that society. One does not simply sweep that away, as it will simply reform, or support will switch to another organization that fills the same role. Which is what has been happening for the last fifty years or so.
“In the case of Lebanon, Hezbollah has a great deal of popular support because it is source of pride and strength for a significant segment of that society. One does not simply sweep that away, as it will simply reform, or support will switch to another organization that fills the same role. Which is what has been happening for the last fifty years or so.”
And so, if I am correct, you prescription for Israel would be to accept missile attacks from Hezbollah for a generation until it dies out? And this as the missiles become more powerful each year? I suspect that might ‘radicalize’ Israel.
Double,
“Or having a family member killed by a bomb may drive a young man from moderation to seeking revenge.”
Or being a young man in a sexually repressed society and being promised 72 virgins for blowing yourself up, maybe? I did not see the word “Islam” or “religious incitement” anywhere in your post. Are there palestinian christians who are members of Hamas? Fatah? Are there any Christian Palestinian terrorist groups? Have you heard of any? I hadn’t…
“I’m pretty sure Israel would prefer a slightly more radical Lebanese government in exchange for the elimination of the completely radical paramilitary which the government has no control over, for example.”
I’m sure they would. But considering the unwillingness to confront Hezbollah which you have explained, is it not at least as likely that Hezbollah could take control of the government–leading to Iran-on-the-border? That would be a rather catastrophic outcome. And if Hezbollah is as strong as you say, why should it be considered an unlikely outcome?
Stan, I would suspect that there are a small but non-zero number of Christians in Palestinian terrorist groups (though not likely many in Hamas itself). Your point is just as strong with being absolutist.
And so, if I am correct, you prescription for Israel would be to accept missile attacks from Hezbollah for a generation until it dies out?
And how many missile attacks were launched prior to this invasion?
And no, I don’t think that it has to be endured. But the current action by Israel is simply strengthening Hezbollah’s reputation considerably in the Arab world, and has weakened (and probably destroyed) the most valuable tools to defanging the organization, democray and the Lebanese economy.
Or being a young man in a sexually repressed society and being promised 72 virgins for blowing yourself up, maybe? I did not see the word “Islam” or “religious incitement” anywhere in your post. Are there palestinian christians who are members of Hamas? Fatah? Are there any Christian Palestinian terrorist groups? Have you heard of any? I hadn’t…
Oooooh, it’s the Muslim thing. Well, on with the crusades then.
double,
You’re right. What was I thinking. Religious incitement has nothing to do with anything. Carry on.
What was I thinking.
Something about Muslims being bad, I think.
“And how many missile attacks were launched prior to this invasion?”
This is an interesting question. I know of attacks in October 2005 and December 2005. (No noticeable international community panic at the time either). Does anyone know of a source which tracks all the missile attacks–maybe by date and/or number of attacks?
Before we find out, it might be fun to establish how many missle attacks you think Israel should tolerate on say a yearly basis. 20? 50? 100? 250?
Now I’m certain that if we got 3 attacks from Mexico hitting San Diego, we would invade Mexico or otherwise ensure the attacks stopped. So I wonder how high we can ‘justify’ for Israel.
double,
“Something about Muslims being bad, I think.”
Quote me.
Sebastian,
Hezbollah attacked Israel in April of 2001, as well…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1279456.stm
Does anyone know of a source which tracks all the missile attacks–maybe by date and/or number of attacks?
Here.
In six years, nineteen or so incidents in total, most of them military skirmishes, with several rocket or missile attacks.
Quote me.
Why would that even be required? Or should I assume that you think Islam peachy?
double,
You accused me of something. Back it up.
Interesting…that NRO bit that I quoted was swiped directly from the Wikipedia entry on Hezbollah (which, I might add, has been edited at least 1400 times since the beginning of the month of July). Plagiarism at NRO? Or did one of the NRO authoris edit the Wiki entry?
Wiki passage:
Corresponding NRO passage:
Could be just a coincidence, though.
Or could be that someone picked it off NRO since yesterday morning, and added it to Wiki. You just never know.
So I wonder how high we can ‘justify’ for Israel.
There is a strange disconnect here that I find hard to understand. There’s a lot of weight put on justifying the attack rather than determining goals and the best path to them.
If the goal is to disarm Hezbollah, reduce its influence and power, or to deradicalize it, then Israel’s approach here is wrong. It cannot be disarmed, and its ability to engage Israel is providing it with a great deal of stature, recruits, and funding from all over the Arab world. In addition to that, Israel now finds itself in a position where it cannot withdraw without losing a lot of stature and encouraging other attacks across its border, yet it cannot destroy Hezbollah either.
This kind of stubborn insistence that its within its rights to do this is the same kind of foolishness that led to the Iraqi catastrophy. Gut reactions to international events is not a sound basis for foreign policy. These things aren’t settled in the same way that a schoolyard fight can be settled.
You accused me of something. Back it up.
No, accusing you would be like this: “You think Muslims are bad”.
What I said in response to your question “What was I thinking?” was this: “Something about Muslims being bad, I think.”
If my thinking, based on what you wrote, was incorrect, I’d love to hear it. Then I will apologize.
Didn’t work then, doubt it’ll work now. For one thing, we’ve never had the stomach to actually push our client despots to embrace democracy (which might mean a government that doesn’t do what we want).
“Haven’t tried” doesn’t equal “doesn’t work.” Of course you are right that there are problems, but then, given that liberal democracy has only stumbled onto the scene in the past 150-200 years, it stands to reason that there *would* be problems.
It shouldn’t be a chicken/egg problem; you can probably advance towards force-monopoly, rule of law, & democracy all at once. But you should expect that advance to be a slow one.
In Iraq, we acted as democracy would just natually lead to the other two, a breathtaking act of naive incompetence that casts serious doubts on the ability of the U.S. to excel at anything besides munitions and soft porn.
Seb: when you ask questions like: “And so, if I am correct, you prescription for Israel would be to accept missile attacks from Hezbollah for a generation until it dies out? And this as the missiles become more powerful each year?”, I wonder: what exactly do you take the alternative to be?
Let’s suppose that Israel has no course of action open to it that will prevent missile attacks entirely: then the answer would probably have to be: well, this should not happen, but Israel will probably have to accept it, since there is no alternative.
Let’s suppose that there is something Israel could do, but it would be appalling, like, oh, wiping out the entire Arab population of the world. In that case, I’d say: well, frankly, yes, they should accept it, given the alternative (19 episodes in 6 years.)
Let’s suppose that Israel could stop the attacks by waving a magic wand, with no harm to anyone: then of course it should not accept missile attacks.
But it’s useless to ask this question without saying what the alternatives are.
Sebastian: I agree with you. This situation to be avoided here is Iran on the border. The problem is I just don’t see how this attack prevents that, but I see plenty of ways in which it facilitates that. So we agree on the strategic goal. Even if they are wiped out militarily, Hezbollah wins this conflict, because they will not be wiped out politically. If they are not wiped out, Hezbollah certainly wins this conflict. In general, the principle is that if you weaken a state and if you impoverish a state, you make it more susceptible to foreign influence. What we need is a wealthy Lebanon and a strong Lebanese government to resist Iranian influence. The only military way to destroy Hezbollah would be an occupation that destroys Hezbollah in the way that we destroyed the Baath party of Iraq. The other tactic you could take is purely political: playing Syria against Iran while supporting the anti-Syrian Lebanese government. And that way you would not have a million displaced Lebanese, and surely that counts for something.
double,
“If my thinking, based on what you wrote, was incorrect, I’d love to hear it. ”
Ok, let’s try this again. Can you please point to what I wrote that lead you to your thinking?
hilzoy,
“given the alternative (19 episodes in 6 years.)”
The alternative is waiting till Hezbollah gets some really nasty weapons (maybe even nukes) down the line.
Even if they are wiped out militarily, Hezbollah wins this conflict, because they will not be wiped out politically. If they are not wiped out, Hezbollah certainly wins this conflict.
And the worst case scenario is Hezbollah actually giving the IDF a bloody nose and driving them from Lebanon. Which I understand is a possible scenario that the IDF is now privately worried about.
Stan : here.
The implication is that people are radicalized because Islam tells them to be.
Again, if my thinking is wrong on what you said, I’d love to hear it.
Ah crap, can’t make the comment linkie thing. This quote:
Or being a young man in a sexually repressed society and being promised 72 virgins for blowing yourself up, maybe? I did not see the word “Islam” or “religious incitement” anywhere in your post. Are there palestinian christians who are members of Hamas? Fatah? Are there any Christian Palestinian terrorist groups? Have you heard of any? I hadn’t…
The alternative is waiting till Hezbollah gets some really nasty weapons (maybe even nukes) down the line.
News flash: Everyone will eventually have nukes. Everyone.
Now, how do we resolve this stuff before that happens?
double,
Well, the problem is the constant religious incitement. Watch MEMRI.
“Now, how do we resolve this stuff before that happens?”
As long as there are people in power who think they’ll get to heaven via martyrdom we are screwed.
Alternatives, lets see if I can game some up.
Scenario: Player A wants Player B removed from the field. Player A at the moment is too weak to be anything then annoyance to Player B.
1. Player B can ignore Player A, and let the pin-pricks continue.
2. Player B can attempt to negotiate with Player A, but unless there is a moderate position from the removal of Player B from the field, then no good faith negotiation can continue.
3. Player B can engage militarily Player A with absolute force until Player A is eliminated. Yes, I mean absolute force in its grimmest form.
4. Player B can engage militarily Player A with moderate force.
5. Player B can engage militarily Player with minimal force.
6. Outside Players can separate the two.
—
Option 1 is doable, for all intents and purposes Hezbollah is no threat to the integrity of the nation state. The number of deaths is miniscule. But utilizing this sort of Cost Benefit Analysis is right up there with saying that we should move all of the money on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to better motor vehicle safety. Therefore, I would strike this option out.
Option 2, I believe is not an option, because it requires for both players to negotiate in good faith to reach a middle point. And at this point, I believe there’s been too much bad blood, AND that the acceptable negotiable outcomes will be unpalatable to the other side.
Options 3-5, are all military, and the usefulness of them in this 4th generational warfare situation is self-evident. Any gains will be temporary at best.
Option 6, is the only viable one that I can see working in the long time. Take a 25 mile chunk of the border from each side, creating a 50 mile no-man’s zone, or however, large to make it No foot traffic, no vehicular traffic. Anything that crosses in there is obviously an act of aggression and will be met with force. This however, will require an act of will on the side of international community, a community that is derisively split on this and many other issues, so this is also probably not viable.
As long as there are people in power who think they’ll get to heaven via martyrdom we are screwed.
Wow. I … Wow.
“nineteen or so incidents in total”
Your link isn’t working. And is that 19 missiles or 19 days of missiles or some other definition of “incident”? Because I can think of a pretty easy definition of “incident” which counts the number of Israeli bombing incidents in Lebanon at “1”. (One currently ongoing incident to be sure.)
double,
“Wow. I … Wow.”
Yep. It sucks. We got people willing to blow themselves and others up, and a nuke is just a bigger bomb.
Sorry, I previewed it and it worked at that time.
Try it off this page, then open the “Hizbullah attacks along Israel’s northern border May 2000 – June 2006” link.
And the 19 incidents refers to a total of 19 seperate clashes with Hezbollah forces during the time period (6 years), including rocket, missile, and mortar attacks over the border into Israel.
I count 5 rocket attacks in six years, resulting in 1 death. Mortar, shell, and other ezplosions killed an additional three during those six years.
Yep. It sucks.
No, I was wowed by the reasoning that must form the basis of your interpretation of international events.
No wonder you’re scared.
To clarify, Stan. The basis of any dialog between opposing parties is the belief that the other side is sane. If you believe that they are insane to the point that they will commit suicide, then there is no basis for rational dialog, diplomacy, or anything other than brute force.
double,
uhmm.. So if some fanatic got his hands on a nuke you wouldn’t be scared?
double,
“If you believe that they are insane to the point that they will commit suicide, then there is no basis for rational dialog, diplomacy, or anything other than brute force.”
I agree. Hence, I am against Israel negotiating with Hezbollah + Hamas.
uhmm.. So if some fanatic got his hands on a nuke you wouldn’t be scared?
Scared to death, which is why I’m alarmed by the situation in Pakistan.
But as events of the last few years have encouraged nuclear proliferation to a staggering degree, it’s fairly obvious that something needs to be done in order to limit the kinds of disasterous wars we’ve been seeing recently, and a way to settle disputes that avoids the use of military force. Or sometime soon someone will fly a nuke over an Israeli city in a civilian Lear Jet.
“and a way to settle disputes that avoids the use of military force”
That would require for both parties to be sane 🙂
With the USSR it was different, because communists valued life (their life, anyway), too. Now we are up against people who seek martyrdom*.
*That’s why I had major probs with Maher saying that the 911 hijackers were “not cowardly”. Utter BS.
That would require for both parties to be sane 🙂
Which is why I prefer my version of the world. They are sane. They are human beings, they want what all human being want and need, and they can be talked to.
In your world, we’ll all be dead soon.
By the way, in one of the early battles in the Pacific War, a US airman crashed his disabled fighter into the super structure of a Japanese battleship in order to put it out of action.
He was awarded a medal posthumously. I haven’t seen anything about him being insane or a fanatic yet, but I’ll keep looking.
Oh, no double-plus-ungood. You aren’t reading that list properly at all. That is ONLY “Chronological list of events along Israel’s northern border in which Israeli civilians and/or soldiers were killed”. That doesn’t include people who were wounded or maimed but not killed.
If you click on “Main Events on the Israel Lebanese Border” on this page you can see incidents between May 2000 and August 2003 (two years ago).
I see 27 incidents of cross-border mortar fire. Including at least 6 civilian casualties.
I see 5 incidents of rocket attacks in that period. 2/4/02–two rockets, 3/4/02–one rocket, 8/4/02,9/4/02, and 10/4/02–several rockets each. Now if we count “several” as exactly three I see 12 rockets in that period.
I know of (from other reports) attacks in December and October of 2005. I’m not sure how many rockets at that time.
I’m still looking for more updated lists.
double,
“Which is why I prefer my version of the world. They are sane.”
I prefer your version, too. Unfortunately we have to face reality. If I had to come up with comic book villains, my imagination would’ve never take me as far as what we are seeing today. People blowing themselves up in a crowd of civilians thinking they’ll get 72 virgins? Their religions leaders encouraging them? What about the rhetoric:
“We are a nation that drinks blood, and we know that there is no blood better than the blood of Jews.”
“My dear mother … wipe your tears… Don’t let me see you sad on my wedding day with the Maidens of Paradise.”
“Escort our souls to Heaven after we fulfill this duty of crushing the descendents of monkeys and pigs.”
“I hoped that the shredded limbs of my body would be shrapnel, tearing the Zionists to pieces, knocking on Heavens door with the skulls of Zionists… My blood shall be my path to march to Heaven.”
This is comic book villain stuff and the scary part is that those are all real quotes, see videos here:
http://www.pmw.org.il/Latest%20bulletins%20new.htm
Sane?
And don’t get me started on the outfits 🙂
Comic book stuff for sure http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.image?id=3750
double,
“By the way, in one of the early battles in the Pacific War, a US airman crashed his disabled fighter into the super structure of a Japanese battleship in order to put it out of action.”
Apples and oranges. As you said, his fighter was disabled, perhaps he felt he was going to die anyway so he crashed into the enemy. Is there proof that he sought his own death prior to getting into that plane?
I thought this was the link?
“Events along Israel’s northern border in which Israeli civilians or soldiers were killed or wounded.”
Ah! The first paragraph contradicts the heading.
Suicide attacks on military and suicide attacks on civilians are equal, somehow?
Slarti,
“Suicide attacks”
I don’t think it was a suicide attack anyway, since his fighter was disabled he might have thought that he was going to die anyway.
Slarti,
I haven’t been following the argument carefully, but I’m pretty sure the general idea is that people who are prepared to die for a cause are insane. If that is the idea it is completely wrong.
Oh, no double-plus-ungood. You aren’t reading that list properly at all.
Well, that wasa confusing way for them to do it. Thanks for clarifying, and I’ll take a look.
What about the rhetoric:
Looks like the comments section of LGF, actually. Fortunately, I do not base my perception of conservatives based on comments at LGF.
Is there proof that he sought his own death prior to getting into that plane?
Wow, getting all nitpicky, aincha?
It is not unheard of for people to commit suicide in order to strike a blow against their enemies for their family, clan, tribe, religious group, or country. Far from being considered insane, most cultures recognize it as an act of extreme bravery, unless they’re on the other side, in which case they’re obviously insane.
The Spartans at Thermopylae? Obviously cuckoo.
The Spartans at Thermopylae? Obviously cuckoo.
Not to mention, flaming queers. You can’t compare them to real Americans.
double,
“Looks like the comments section of LGF, actually.”
I don’t understand your analogy. Are you saying that those guys in the videos don’t represent Hamas?
“The Spartans at Thermopylae”
Suicide bombing is hardly a defensive act.
I’m not gonna read all 500 comments over this and the prior posts, but we all must have settled on a reasonable position by now, right? Right? Hello?
I don’t understand your analogy. Are you saying that those guys in the videos don’t represent Hamas?
No, I’m saying that I know honest-to-gosh Palestinians in the flesh who are angered and dismayed at what is going on, and they don’t talk like that. But, k’know, whatever floats your boogyman boat…
Suicide bombing is hardly a defensive act.
Eye of the beholder.
But, k’know, whatever floats your boogyman boat…
Boogyman? Hardly. Didn’t Hamas win the election? Aren’t those Hamas members in the videos? Don’t those videos get posted on the official Hamas website and played on the Palestinian television?
Just close your eyes and lalalalalalalala.
Charley,
“Eye of the beholder.”
Sorry, I assumed that everybody here was on the same page suicide-bombing wise. My mistake.
Boogyman? Hardly. Didn’t Hamas win the election?
Cue scary music.
Aren’t those Hamas members in the videos?
Chills up my spine.
Don’t those videos get posted on the official Hamas website and played on the Palestinian television?
Booogada-boogadaa!
Yes to all of the above. Now, as boogymen have been apparently democratically elected by what appear to be a nation of boogymen, probably inspired by a suicide-cult boogyman religion, what is to be done?
Apparently nothing, because they’re all insane in your books.
Give one of those dudes a nuke, see what he does with it… Probably nothing, cause in your version of the world “they want what all human being want and need, and they can be talked to.” Yep, that’s it. How crazy of me to even mention the rhetoric, the videos and the suicide bombings. Perhaps its me who’s insane, huh?
The people who are engaging in suicide bombing, imo, think they are engaging in a defensive act, and it doesn’t matter what you think, I think, or anyone reading these words thinks. Plenty of folks thought the US invasion of Iraq was defensive. I’m not (and wasn’t) one of them, but I understood their logic.
Perhaps its me who’s insane, huh?
No Stan, but your perspective on this is a dead-end, literally. According to your worldview, there can never be any negotiation.
It’s a pessimistic outlook, and it’s probably shared by many on both sides. Including the ones you’re most scared of.
I presume we all understand that suicide bombing is done by humans?
I presume we all understand that suicide bombing is done by humans?
Yup.
I presume we all understand that suicide bombing is done by humans?
Well I believe the Red Army used to train dogs to run under tanks, where the explosives they were carrying would go off. I don’t count that as suicide however because the dogs were expecting to get biscuits. What are you trying to clarify here?
Guess not.
After reading through the comments on the last two posts, I have developed outrage fatigue and am embracing my inner Kissinger. The only thing about the conflict in Lebanon that concerns me now is how it affects U.S. interests. I don’t think we have much of a dog in this fight, frankly. Our sole concern in Lebanon should be to prevent it from becoming a failed state and a haven for al-Qaeda and like-minded terrorist groups (i.e., those dedicated to attacking Americans).
To the extent that Israel’s attacks increase the likelihood of Lebanon collapsing into chaos, I oppose them and would hope that we are pressuring Israel behind the scenes to alter its strategy. If there are concessions we can offer Syria to decrease support for Hezbollah, we should make them. If there are measures we can take to strengthen the Lebanese government, we should do so. Who’s right and who’s wrong doesn’t enter into it.
3GB,
you and the Editors. I would say strange bedfellows except that they use the bed image and I wouldn’t want to put you in there.
double,
“No Stan, but your perspective on this is a dead-end, literally.”
How does one negotiate with someone who doesn’t recognize your right to exist? What’s there to negotiate about? Your last meal? Or the manner in which you die?
If someone attacks you, there’s a point at which your response crosses a line and stops being mere self-defense and becomes a horror of its own.
Wrong. You honor the threat. You don’t stop until you wipe it out.
So, if some guy punches you in the nose in a bar, OCSteve advocates — explicitly — beating him to death where he stands. Noted.
Soldiers are expected to give their life for their country. What does a country owe them in return? Is this about 2 soldiers? Of course not – it is about the almost daily attacks over many years. But as a pretext it sits very nicely with me…
Of course it does. No bill is too large for the guy who’s not picking up the tab. You risk nothing, so what the hell do you care? Just more dead bodies for you to not give a shit about.
How about 241 dead Marines in 1983? We should not just be supplying arms in this war – we should be directly involved. Is 23 years too long to wait for payback?
Might I suggest that, among grownups, among all the possible reasons to spend money and lives, and to launch bombs and bullets at people, “payback” should be . . . oh, let’s say #51 on a list of 50 really good reasons?
I revere RR – but withdrawing from Lebanon then was a huge mistake, the biggest of his presidency.
Oh, let’s be generous here. Reagan made way bigger mistakes than that.
The ME has been a festering boil on the armpit of the world for decades – it is time to settle it. We should directly help Israel in Lebanon, and use this opportunity to settle things with Syria and Iran both. The time has passed for half-baked “peace” treaties that only one side honors and roadmaps to hell. Get this crap over with once and for all.
And that encompasses what, exactly? And what are you willing to risk to make it happen?
Phil,
So, if some guy punches you in the nose in a bar, OCSteve advocates — explicitly — beating him to death where he stands. Noted.
Actually, if somebody punches you in the nose you’ll call the cops. They’ll come down and if the perp resists enough he just might get shot.
No bill is too large for the guy who’s not picking up the tab. You risk nothing, so what the hell do you care? Just more dead bodies for you to not give a shit about.
That’s rich! Do you live in Israel? They should just the attacks, right? Cause you don’t live there.
The only thing about the conflict in Lebanon that concerns me now is how it affects U.S. interests. I don’t think we have much of a dog in this fight, frankly.
Ah, if only it were so. From Abu Aardvard, who has been monitoring the Arab media closely:
How does one negotiate with someone who doesn’t recognize your right to exist?
Are you under the astounding impression that there have been no negotiations with various Palestinian organizations or political entities? Ever?
double,
Hamas doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist, nor does Hezbollah.
Stan, I’m just dying to know — how do you think the Palestinian issue will eventually be resolved?
double,
What’s tomorrow’s lotto numbers? I am dying to know!
What’s tomorrow’s lotto numbers? I am dying to know!
I didn’t ask you how it would be resolved, I was asking if you see a way forward to a solution. You don’t, obviously.
double,
They will finally realize that killing sucks and we are all humans and that stuff that their imams teach em about 72 virgins is BS, etc.
In your version of the world, anyway… 🙂
If you think I’m going to engage you, Stan, you dishonest, tu quoque-er, you, think again.
You may want to note, however, that OCSteve — the person to whom I was actually speaking — does not live in Israel, either, so his opinion on the matter is worth exactly what you suppose mine is worth.
Phil,
“If you think I’m going to engage you, Stan, you dishonest, tu quoque-er, you, think again.”
Oh, no! I thought I had you there, but you showed me!
“You may want to note, however, that OCSteve — the person to whom I was actually speaking”
Sorry, didn’t realize it was a private conversation. You should’ve emailed him instead of taking up space on this thread with your private convos.
Interesting link, dpu. I’m not sure how to what extent I agree with the assertion (in the Abu Aardvark piece) that Israel is the USA’s “client state” and that we have the power to force Israel to halt the bombing. That the ME media and public view America as some sort of puppet master is not surprising, but that doesn’t make it true. I do agree that the Bush administration is unlikely to try very hard.
“So, if some guy punches you in the nose in a bar, OCSteve advocates — explicitly — beating him to death where he stands. Noted.”
Hmm, no. But if a guy punches me in the face, tells me he knows where my sister lives and that he intends to rape her is next seen by me breaking into her house–I may very well beat him to death where he stands.
I’m not sure how to what extent I agree with the assertion (in the Abu Aardvark piece) that Israel is the USA’s “client state” and that we have the power to force Israel to halt the bombing.
I’m not sure either, but I do know that a significant portion of Israel’s debt is held by the US, that its military is heavily dependent on US arms, and that is has received an enormous amount of US aid throughout its history.
I’m not sure that makes it a client state, but there is a generally perceived notion that the two countries are closely bound.
Stan LS: They will finally realize that…
Stan, all I can say is that I ghope that this level of thinking isn’t shared by the other conservatives here. To much hand-waving for me to take seriously, sorry.
ghope == hope above
Ok choose, lose the few inocents that will be lost tragically through collateral damage in this conflict or the many many thousands more that would die as a result of allowing Hezbollah to continue to exist as it does and continue to threaten Israel?
Just curious Sebastian, would you beat this man to death accepting (or ignoring) any resulting consequences or would you feel completely in your right to do it?
…result of allowing Hezbollah to continue to exist as it does…
It’s now becoming apparent that not only will Hezbollah continue to exist despite the Israeli military action, but it will come out with more support within Lebanon, improved prestige and popularity in the Arab world, and new sources of funding and recruits.
Sebastian, you (along with some buzzing mosquito) are awfully eager to answer on behalf of OCSteve, but read what the man wrote. In response to If someone attacks you, there’s a point at which your response crosses a line and stops being mere self-defense and becomes a horror of its own, he wrote:
Wrong. You honor the threat. You don’t stop until you wipe it out.
Note, he didn’t say, “Well, if further threats to another party, and then caught in flagrante . . .” or anything of the sort. He said “Wrong,” period. That, in response to an attack, you “wipe out the threat.” If that means something other than “beat the nose-puncher to death on the spot,” I’ll let him explain it; but otherwise, the words are right there, and I think you’re being overgenerous in trying to make it mean something different.
“, but it will come out with more support within Lebanon, improved prestige and popularity in the Arab world, and new sources of funding and recruits.”
So they should instead do what? Negotiate with the terrorists? Certainly that won’t empower them.
Or better yet, Israel should just ignore Hezbollah when they attack them or kidnap their soldiers, right? They need to just stay with the status quo, because it will only get worse if they resist terrorists.
We all need to become complacent and just try not to upset the terrorists. Follow in Spain’s foodsteps.
Texaggie79:
Wiki:”Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or ETA (Basque for “Basque Homeland and Freedom”; IPA pronunciation: [ˈɛːta]) is a paramilitary Basque nationalist organization that seeks to create an independent socialist state for the Basque people in the Basque Country, separate from Spain and France. On March 22, 2006, the organization declared a permanent ceasefire stating it will commit itself “to promote a democratic process in the Basque Country in order to build a new framework within which our rights as a people are recognized, and guarantee the opportunity to develop all political options in the future.” ETA is considered by Spain, France, the European Union, and the United States to be a terrorist organization, with more than 800 killings attributed to it.”
?
Texaggie: “lose the few inocents that will be lost tragically through collateral damage in this conflict or the many many thousands more that would die as a result of allowing Hezbollah to continue to exist as it does and continue to threaten Israel?”
It’s not “few innocents’. So far, it’s around four hundred, I forget how many wounded, and as of yesterday 800,000 people fleeing for their lives. During the last six years, before the onset of this conflict, I count twenty one Israelis killed by Hezbollah.
StanLS: Let’s please not play the ‘do you live in Israel?’ game. I mean, I could go there, as someone who knows Israelis who have been wounded in combat, who has a lot of friends in Israel now, and who spent the beginning of the last Lebanese war, when it looked as though Syria might come in, a couple of kilometers from the Golan, at pretty much the exact spot where Syria would be most likely to come across. I know the inside of a bomb shelter, and not by choice. And so on, and so forth.
But that’s irrelevant. What matters are the arguments people make, not their experiences. And ‘you don’t live in Israel’ is not an argument.
I don’t know if this will be helpful, but I think goading OCSteve and Stan into making statements they are probably not going to say in real life (I feel certain Seb isn’t going to let a situation get to the point he hypothesizes at 8:13) may be emotionally satisfying, but it just stinks up the place. Respectfully, more links and ideas, less hyperbolic analogies please.
And Texaggie: What Israel should do is: whatever action will best serve its interests without being morally horrific. What we are discussing, among other things, is whether Israel’s actions will in fact advance its interests by making its people safer. If the answer is ‘no’, why on earth should Israel perform them?
hilzoy,
StanLS: Let’s please not play the ‘do you live in Israel?’ game.
Actually, I am not the one playing that game. I was pointing out Phil’s hypocracy in his post:
No bill is too large for the guy who’s not picking up the tab. You risk nothing, so what the hell do you care?
I was pointing out the fact that Phil is not picking up the tab, either…
What matters are the arguments people make, not their experiences.
I agree 100%
Sorry, LJ, but if someone is going to argue — again — that it’s time to “end this once and for all,” I don’t find it as unproductive as you apparently do to suss out what they mean by both “end this” and “once in for all.” I’m sure I’ll save a lot more Israeli and Lebanese lives by typing “a href= . . . ” but I’d still like to know where people are coming from.
double,
Stan, all I can say is that I ghope that this level of thinking isn’t shared by the other conservatives here.
But what’s your line of thinking? You just dimiss everything as boogyman and have this ideal version of the world which does not reflect reality.
If the answer is ‘no’, why on earth should Israel perform them?
I think the questio is, “Why on Earth WOULD Israel perform them?”
Have you lived surrounded by countries full of people who want to see your state initialed? Have you had over 50 years of experience surviving within that hostile environment?
I think Israel knows what it is doing…
hilzoy,
whatever action will best serve its interests without being morally horrific
How are they morally horrific? Israel flew 4,500 sorties in the past 2 weeks over Lebanon. You are going to have a hard time proving that Israel is targeting civilians if those 4,500 sorties result in several hundred civilian casualties.
Well, I tried. Have at it.
Texaggie: again, where I have and have not lived is irrelevant. However, as I said, one of the questions up for grabs is whether what Israel is doing will benefit them in the long run. History does not suggest to me that Israel or any other state always acts wisely. In this instance, I think it is not.
StanLS: I don’t think Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, as I said on some previous thread. However, I also don’t think that’s the only way something can be morally horrific.
To pick a non-Israel example: we could kill Osama bin Laden right now, by the simple expedient of blowing up the planet. The fact that everyone on earth who wasn’t Osama (or a member of al Qaeda) would “only” be collateral damage does not make this non-horrific.
Call me crazy, but I like to know the premises from which people are arguing. You clearly don’t. Noted and moving on.
hilzoy,
“However, I also don’t think that’s the only way something can be morally horrific.”
Well, no one is arguing that all war is horrific, but lets keep in mind who started this war – the blame rests on their shoulders.
As for a non-Israel example. How about Hitler. He could’ve been stopped in the 1930’s, no? Who knows, maybe that war would’ve resulted in 100,000 casualties. Maybe 200,000. That’s a lot, but definately not even close to WW2’s body count. So why should Israel sit there and wait for the Hezbollah to ugprade its capability even further?
StanLS: Again, it all depends on whether you think that the present actions by Israel will in fact help in the long run. I do not. Thus, I don’t see this as a choice between ‘stop them now’ and ‘take enormous casualties later’. I see it as a choice between ‘stop now, or preferably after the second day or so’ and ‘make your problem with Hezbollah worse and rack up civilian casualties’.
Stan LS wrote
“How are they morally horrific? Israel flew 4,500 sorties in the past 2 weeks over Lebanon. You are going to have a hard time proving that Israel is targeting civilians if those 4,500 sorties result in several hundred civilian casualties.”
Sigh. Nobody is claiming that Israel is killing as many civilians as it possibly can. The claim is that they are at the very least being rather careless in bombing Beirut neighborhoods and in using cluster munitions in populated areas.
Besides, even really terrible governments usually don’t kill as many civilians as they possibly could. Maybe Pol Pot did, and the Hutus in Rwanda. The Nazis, of course, with respect to Jews and maybe there are other examples. But most brutal governments fall far short of that standard.
Donald,
Still, 4,500 sorties – several hundred dead. What’s the ratio here?
“Nobody is claiming that Israel is killing as many civilians as it possibly can. The claim is that they are at the very least being rather careless in bombing Beirut neighborhoods and in using cluster munitions in populated areas.”
This is a problem I’m actually willing to suggest might be “of the left”. If we take war crimes seriously, Hezbollah is responsible for every civilian death caused by mixing military and civilian objects. If every news report of civilian deaths caused by such mixing reported it as such, I think that would make a great difference in the propaganda game–which is the game that Hezbollah is primarily playing.
If we take war crimes seriously, Hezbollah is responsible for every civilian death caused by mixing military and civilian objects.
Isn’t it possible for a given civilian death to be the result of war crimes by both Hezbollah and Israel? E.g., if Hezbollah commits a war crime by caching weapons in a preschool, isn’t it possible that Israel would also be committing a war crime by bombing the preschool if the foreseeable (expected, anticipated?) collateral damage was disproportionate to the significance of the cache?
no it isn’t Sebastian. You don’t know Intl Humanitarian Law. Neither do I by the way, but I know people who do & I seem to have absorbed a little more by osmosis. The French resistance mixed military & civilian objects & the ANC mixed in with the civilian population, as well as hmm, every insurgency ever. It does not mean that the opposing force can just wipe out huge swaths of the population and say “it’s their fault for hiding” and charge the war crimes to the insurgencies account. (I wouldn’t characterize Israel as wiping out a huge swatch of the Lebanese population but your argument could be used by a government who did.)
The war is a vivid memory in our country. Quit a lot of the people who lived through it still live and talk to children and grandchildren. That makes both war and being occupied more than a theoretical concept.
*If* your country is occupied, what are you supposed to do Sebastian? Lie still and play dead? Do as you’re told? What would be an appropriate course of action in your opinion?
Ummm…Hizbollah isn’t an insurgency. Well, it might be one now, but as of a couple of weeks ago, Lebanon was only occupied by Lebanese.
“It does not mean that the opposing force can just wipe out huge swaths of the population and say “it’s their fault for hiding” and charge the war crimes to the insurgencies account.”
No it doesn’t and “it’s their fault for hiding” isn’t what I said. I said that when you mix military and civilian objects, and the other side targets the military object–destroying civilian objects and killing civilians as a result, the war crime accrues to the person who mixed the two together.
Just because Hezbollah launches rockets from within a hospital doesn’t mean that targeting all hospitals is ok. But if you have legitimate reasons to believe that they are in that particular one, you can bomb it and the war crime accrues to Hezbollah.
Slarti: that does not answer my question though.
All I know is that I didn’t think well of Hezbollah before and whether or not they started it is questionable but now I think of them as the victims and Israel as the aggresor.
After all wasn’t there a similar situation in Nazi Germany, where the Nazi’s destoroyed several Jewish towns as punishment for the death of two of their Nazi soldiers? Guess the Israeli’s have learned from the Nazi’s
Israel is not destroying towns, in reprisal or otherwise.