New at Reason

David Weigel | July 25, 2006

Brian Doherty asks the hard questions about the conflict in Lebanon: Is it justified? Who are the victims? Who's to blame?

Comments

|7.25.06 @ 1:07PM|#

This article, more succintly:

Kill 'em all, let God sort it out.

|7.25.06 @ 1:32PM|#

Tbone,

That's the sneior engineer's position at my office is.

The problem is that philosophy is easily reciprocated.

|7.25.06 @ 1:57PM|#

Assuming Hezbollah's leadership has sufficient operational control to have ordered the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers, [and that is a very big assumption] then its leadership could be justifiably punished.

To collectively punish the entire Lebanese population is unacceptable.

As Brian Doherty points out, even it Hezbollah is destroyed, there will soon be Ibn Hezbollah to take its place. Isreal will be back to square one.

Should Isreal just stand and take it? No way. Allowing Hezbollah to strike with impunity simply encourages them.

Is there a solution? None that I can see. The only way out is if Israel's opponents become sufficiently wealthy to be more interested in the good things in life than in killing Isrealis. As long as Fatah's & Hezbollah's & Hamas' leadership is as stupid, corrupt and fanatical as it appears, that isn't going to happen.

|7.25.06 @ 2:28PM|#

Hizbullah's problem is more than just the kidnapping of the soldiers though. If I'm not mistaken, their mission statement is the destructin of the state of Israel. With them getting better and better weaponry from Iran, and building of deeper more sophisticated bunkers in anticipation of the war they freely admit they will eventually wage on Israel, there seems no logical way in which we can assign blame for this mess to anyone but Hizbullah. Its not like the Israelis are occupying Lebanon anymore. Then you could at least make the argument (incorrect as it may have been) that Hizbullah were merely fighting the occupation. So long as Hizbullah's mission remains what it is now, it would be imprudent for Israel to do anything but destroy them. So long as Hizbullah remains in Lebanon, this means Lebanon will pay the price for Hizbullah's stupidity.

|7.25.06 @ 2:28PM|#

Couldn't we airdrop megatons of loose, pre rolled "interstate commerce" on the area and mellow everybody out for a week?

After that mental holiday, maybe people woulod see things more clearly?

|7.25.06 @ 2:58PM|#

Were your parents stupid too?

|7.25.06 @ 3:00PM|#

"Assuming Hezbollah's leadership has sufficient operational control to have ordered the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers, [and that is a very big assumption]"

Were your parents stupid too?

eb|7.25.06 @ 3:20PM|#

Who's to blame in Lebanon? Hmm, I'm sure this will be an interesting point of discussion as the UN leaps into the fray.

Meanwhile, how many people have died in Sudan from the ongoing genocide in the same 14 days? Don't ask me, nobody seems to care enough to cover it any more. But it does seems likely that the number there is much higher.

As soon as the media starts covering deaths that don't fall into their preferred image-friendly format, the sooner I'll take them seriously. I don't see that happening soon.

When's the last time Hitandrun checked in on Darfur?

Spectacular deaths seem to be so much more worthy of coverage don't they?

|7.25.06 @ 4:08PM|#

""Were your parents stupid too?""

What's up "huh" didn't your parents teach you any manners? It's not polite to call someone stupid or his parents on a message board unless you can qualify your argument. Under what premise is Aresen statement consider stupid?

|7.25.06 @ 4:09PM|#

eb:

TV coverage of remote parts of Darfur = extremely difficult

Getting reporters into & out of same = pretty difficult

Broadcasting from or near Beirut = easy

It seems to me effort & expense explain this as well as the ubiquitous "brown people don't matter" argument. (Which I know you didn't advance.) It's just simpler and cheaper to cover the one than the other. Plus, we've (CNN et al.) got this narrative all worked out!

|7.25.06 @ 4:11PM|#

Huh:

Perhaps you do not understand the basics of the three C's: Command, Control & Communication.

Hezbollah's leadership can order anything it wants, but can it commincate it and control it?

The implicit assumption in your pejorative response is that Hezbollah is a fully functioning, fully disciplined hierarchy where nothing happens against the will of its leadership. There is a distinct possibility that someone at a low level was acting on his own initiative. Even rogue organizations have rogue operatives. Even if Hezbollah claimed credit for the raid, the leadership may have been forced to claim credit rather than risk an internal faction fight.

If you make the assumption that nothing is done without the direct orders of those in nominal authority, you must also assume that what appears to have happened at Haditha was carried out on the direct orders of George Bush.

|7.25.06 @ 4:14PM|#

""Spectacular deaths seem to be so much more worthy of coverage don't they?"""

Right before I moved to NYC in 1990 I saw some news show that was interviewing a NYC homicide detective. He said that "murder was not news in NYC, it's the quality of the murder that's the news."

and hey, if we ignore Dafur it will go away! Stay the course!

|7.25.06 @ 4:44PM|#

Aresen:

Except that it's been widely reported that the highest levels of Hezbollah proudly claim the attack as their own work, the result of months of careful study and planning. The execution of the raid into Israel that resulted in the kidnapping of the soldiers supports this claim.

|7.25.06 @ 5:04PM|#

It might be that in a truly just world, we all are getting exactly what we deserve for moral crimes of commission and omission, for letting evils be committed by states in our name, for failing to stop whatever wrongs we could stop, or die trying.

Incomprehensible bullshit. How old were you, Brian, when our government began backing the Contras? Or performing their arms-for-hostages deal? Because I was about 9, and I have to confess, I really cared a hell of a lot more about my Barbie and Star Wars action figure inventories than I did about my government's covert ops. (Come to think of it, I still do.) So today, Osama bin Laden and his buddies would like to blow me and 300 million of my closest friends off the planet, because of things my government did when I was a child. Or even before I was born.

Nope. Sorry. Not taking blame for that, not at all.

The U.S. manufactures weapons and provides them to Israel for their defense. We didn't fire them; we're no more responsible for how they're used than a cutlery manufacturer is responsible for a stabbing death. We don't have a dog in this fight.

I'm pretty sure this is going to sound awful, but you know what? I don't care. I just don't. I see the howling Lebanese on TV, just like we've seen them howling before and will see them howling again, and I just don't give a rip. They get out there and parade their bloodied "civilians" on Al Jazeera like all the other Islamobots, and I can't help but enjoy a moment of glee that there are that many fewer of them sucking oxygen, confidentially. (And I'm pretty sure the feeling was mutual, when the Lebanese and their Hezbollah bunk buddies watched the aftermath of 9/11.) There are 6.4 billion people on this rock, and I have neither the time nor the interest to give a flying feck about all their constipatory little issues. I'm sure that makes me immoral, but you know, I've got a couple of discs left to watch in "Battlestar Galactica: Season 1," and I just don't give a bald rat's ass about the near-Eastern Hatfields and McCoys.

But at least I'm an honest sociopath. The UN hasn't done a whole hell of a lot for Lebanese civilians since this started, either. BBC News took a free swipe at the German navy yesterday for only rescuing Lebanese holding "foreign" passports "even though there is enough room on the vessel for everyone." But I didn't see any British ships dropping the gangplank for every Taj, Dhak, and Hafiz on the pier, either.

To comment on Peter Unger's histrionics, I can't think of a single instance where America perpetually rescuing a nation (as the liberal press believes we should do with Lebanon) has resulted in permanent stability for that nation. Obviously, our endless surrogate parenthood of Israel hasn't really matured them much. If somebody has a compelling anecdote about how funneling a never-ending supply of aid and motherly nurture to a troubled country has actually brought that country into lasting peace, stability, and prosperity, I'm all ears.

|7.25.06 @ 5:23PM|#

If I'm not mistaken, their mission statement is the destructin of the state of Israel.

Care to link to where Hezbollah stated that in their mission statement?

Except that it's been widely reported that the highest levels of Hezbollah proudly claim the attack as their own work, the result of months of careful study and planning. The execution of the raid into Israel that resulted in the kidnapping of the soldiers supports this claim.

Israel holds hundreds of Lebanese citizens in prison since the days it invaded Lebanon. I don't see how Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldier is a justification to bomb ambulances and houses. I thought soldiers were fair game and civilians aren't in a war.

|7.25.06 @ 5:30PM|#

Shelby

Point conceded. I should have chosen a better example to illustrate the uncertainties of control in an organization such as Hezbollah.

However, I still maintain it is wrong to inflict suffering on others - i.e. non-Hezbollah Lebanese - in order to exact retribution on the perpetrators.

And even if Isreal destroys Hezbollah, it is still left with Ibn Hezbollah and, after that, Ibn Ibn Hezbollah.

|7.25.06 @ 5:41PM|#

Governments and their militaries are do not exist in some separate dimension from civilians, such that they might be uniquely targeted by an invading force. Enemy governments are thoroughly integrated into the territory over which they rule, depending upon its wealth, hospitals, roads, factories, trains, farms, ports, industry, people, and more. That's why quickly and decisively eliminating the threat posed by an enemy nation cannot but require the bombing of so-called "civilian" targets.

Moreover, without active support and/or tacit submission from a majority of the civilian population, no government could maintain its grip on power. That's why the vast majority of the population of an aggressive enemy nation are not morally innocent bystanders. The sometimes-awful luck of genuine innocents in wartime, such as young children or active dissidents, is a terrible tragedy. However, the party responsible is not the nation defending itself but rather all those who made such a defense necessary, particularly the countrymen of the innocents complicit in or supportive of the aggression of their nation.

|7.25.06 @ 5:51PM|#

Very well put "zeroentitlement". I couldn't agree more.

Try this gedanken experiment on for size:
If somehow, the government of Israel could push a magic button to eliminate all the arms (including improvised explosive devices) in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia while leaving Israel fully armed, would there be anymore bloodshed?

Could you say the same if the experiment were reversed (i.e if Arabs had a magic button to eliminate all Israel's arms while keeping theirs)?

Your answers to those two questions will point out who's to blame.

|7.25.06 @ 6:58PM|#

I don't see why it is inevitable that if Hizbullah is destroyed another Hizbullah will rise from the ashes. This isn't an occupation situation anymore. Lebanon is free. Forsaking the future of their own country and children in order to wage an elective and futile war against their neighbor isn't logical. Indeed, it is completely insane. It seems as though a bare majority of the people of Lebanon already understand this. It doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility that killing mass amount of the people who are never going to get it won't solve the problem. The dead will be dead, and those left behind might finally see the light. This will only work however, if the casualties are high enough. I think what people are forgetting is that sometimes its best to just rip the band aid off in one fell swoop. Perpetual war benifits no one. Lebanon deserves a true fresh start.

|7.25.06 @ 7:07PM|#

Huh?
"If somehow, the government of Israel could push a magic button to eliminate all the arms (including improvised explosive devices) in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia while leaving Israel fully armed, would there be anymore bloodshed? "

"Greater Israel" , an announced desire not just of murderous crackpot Zionists, but their murderous crackpot jesus end timer pals, covers a lot more land than the Israelis have managed to steal so far.
Id say a lot more blood would flow if the Arab "insects" were unarmed. But thats just me. Maybe I remember what got said yesterday to bloody much.....

|7.25.06 @ 7:34PM|#

Jesus, Israel matserminded 9/11, calls all the shots in the American government, and imports the blood of Christian babies to make matzoh. Lebanon is child's play. And no, I'm not an anti-Semite. I just follow the evidence into whatever dark corner of my mind it leads. Conspiracies are real, dammit. Israel is real. 2+2=4. At least Israel doesn't control arithmatic. Yet.

|7.25.06 @ 8:35PM|#

Israeli intelligence had no idea what was going on in Lebanon. A major political upheaval and restructuring of the government of a bordering country of crucial strategic importance went completely unnoticed and/ or unexamined by the Israeli government and their highly touted eyes and ears on the Arab street.

The Israelis were totally blindsided by the Hezbollah missiles and raiding parties. Raise your hand if you believe that.

|7.25.06 @ 9:15PM|#

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PEOPLE!!!

It's spelled "Israel," not "Isreal"!

Tim Cavanaugh is getting very annoyed by this strangely common misspelling. He has even thraetened to devote an entire thraed to this.

|7.25.06 @ 9:22PM|#

What do you suppose his thoughts are in regard to "Izrull"?

|7.25.06 @ 10:34PM|#

The Israelis were totally blindsided by the Hezbollah missiles and raiding parties. Raise your hand if you believe that.

Disagree. Israel's offensive began after two of its soldiers were captured, giving it an excuse to invade. Clearly it was waiting for this opportunity, which demonstrates that it at least felt there was a real threat in Lebanon even if you won't go as far as to believe they understood the full extent of Hiz's rocket arsenal.

|7.26.06 @ 1:26AM|#

I continue to be amazed at the hard line that Lebanon is taking in the cease fire negotiations. And how the press, including the normally insightful folks at Reason have managed to miss this. In the breath after calling for a cease fire, Siniora calls for the transfer of Sheba farms as a condition of the "comprehensive agreement". Berri echoes this.

How is it that people tune this out?

Tim why are you quoting has beens like Aoun and ignoring Berri and Siniora? Pretty much the entire Lebanese government has been placing very steep terms on a cease fire. I don't mean Hez, I mean the Lebanese government. It is a shame Lebanese civilians are paying for this war, but most of their elected leaders want this war and are not ready for it to end.

|7.26.06 @ 1:36AM|#

Aresen,

The only way out is if Israel's opponents become sufficiently wealthy to be more interested in the good things in life than in killing Isrealis.

Killing Israelis is one of the good things in life to the rest of the ME.


Dear Realizing,

Not all of us.

|7.26.06 @ 1:40AM|#

NAL, very well put.

|7.26.06 @ 1:48AM|#

Brian, kudos for asking the hard questions and not jumping for the quick and ready canned answers.

War sucks, but this isn't the first time in history that it was the only way to resolve a conflict. Problem is, nobody in the past 2000 years or so has been able to end it in the ME.

Maybe we ought to let Iran have it after all. Keeping the region under control would take up so much of their time and attention that they wouldn't be able to bother us.

All we have to do is find some open real estate to move the Israelis to.

The more I think about it, the more this solution makes sense. If we could only convince Israel to relocate....and could that really cost much more than what we're giving them in aid already?

|7.26.06 @ 3:58AM|#

Lots of people around here say that "real libertarians are noninterventionists". We're also (theoretically) capitalists. Now if you mix this thouroghly with just a little Machiavelli, the solution becomes obvious.

The ME is predominantly Muslim. OBL and his ilk want to rule the Muslim world. [his statements right after 9/11 were classic, near-text book pan-Arabism in case anybody missed that]. And now it's clear the Persians want a stab at running the show.

The Muslim world clearly wants to duke it out within their own ranks, even if Israel wasn't in the picture.

Machiavelli could not have asked for a more perfect stage setting. You pit your enemies against each other and get the hell out of Dodge.

We should do the following immediately:

1) Issue a gigantic public apology to OBL for messing up his home turf. Pull out all US forces in Saudi Arabia and tell OBL he can come and get it if he really wants it.

2) Issue a gigantic public apology to Iran for messing up whatever it is they figure was theirs, that we messed up. Pull all US forces out of Iraq, and tell Iran they can come and get it if they really want it.

3) Offer to help Israel relocate itself to somewhere a little more serene.

4) Offer to sell bombs and bullets to any ME country that can come up with the cash. We aren't partial, we'll sell to either side. Take it or leave it. Buy from the Russians if you don't like us.

OBL and the Sunnis then fights Iran, and neither of them has time to fight the US. [my bet is on the Persians, who will then pay hell trying to keep it all under control]

The money we make selling bombs and bullets helps us pay for whatever oil they don't blow up in the process of working out their adolecent peacock-in-puberty complexes.


This can only happen in a novel about an alternate universe.....

|7.26.06 @ 8:02AM|#

zeroentitlement

I can't think of a single instance where America perpetually rescuing a nation (as the liberal press believes we should do with Lebanon) has resulted in permanent stability for that nation.

What do you mean by perpetually rescuing? Certainly countries that America and her allies have rescued (e.g. West Germany, South Korea) have done very well. Countries that defeated the US, or which were defeated by other countries (e.g. North Korea, East Germany) have faired much worse.

Not_A_Libertarian

If somehow, the government of Israel could push a magic button to eliminate all the arms (including improvised explosive devices) in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia while leaving Israel fully armed, would there be anymore bloodshed?

Could you say the same if the experiment were reversed (i.e if Arabs had a magic button to eliminate all Israel's arms while keeping theirs)?

Your answers to those two questions will point out who's to blame.

Something quite similar to this happened in the late forties when the British disarmed everyone in Palestine, but the Zionists were able to re-import arms from Europe and the Palestinians weren't. The result was that thousands of Palestinians were either massacred or fled from their villages to avoid the same fate. Since it was only the threat of war that persuaded the Israeli government to return large parts of Egypt that they were in the process of settling and given the current situation with settlements in the fragments of Palestine and given that the pullout from Gaza was done because the deaths caused by Hamas were becoming unsustainable, I think it's pretty obvious that what would happen would be a mass land-grab by Israel that would lead to a huge refugee crisis. If the button is single use, you'd see displaced Arabs re-arming and coming back to fight guerrilla warfare throughout an expanded Israel.

If Israel was to be disarmed, I think you'd see a massive multi-state fight as the surrounding countries tried to reclaim lost-land and disputes arose over who originally owned what.

FatDrunkAndStupid

I don't see why it is inevitable that if Hizbullah is destroyed another Hizbullah will rise from the ashes.

It depends on how that victory is achieved. Israel's occupation was very bad for the Lebanese population, that led to resentment that caused the creation of Hezbollah. Trying to bomb Hezbollah out of existance will cause the same thing. Bombing terror is like bombing mud, you don't get rid of it, you just spread it around. Ground force surgical strikes against Hezbollah that minimise civilian casualties, coupled with support for democratic government in Beruit could sufficiently strengthen the Lebanese army and weaken Hezbollah to the point where they could be controlled internally, but Israel won't do that, I don't know why.

Genghis Kahn

All we have to do is find some open real estate to move the Israelis to.

People don't move to Israel for safety. They move there out of a religious fanaticism that demands that they take the land as a Jewish homeland. Offering them safety in the US is pointless. For those born in Israel it is unfair to ask them to abandon their homeland because of the threat of violence. Rather than expecting all Israelis to relocate, it would be far more achievable and far more fair to end the policy of racial preference in immigration and only move the people who are in the illegal settlements.

To answer Brian's question:
The Israeli leadership is responsible for civilian deaths in Lebanon, they chose the worst possible method of fighting against terrorists and they gave the orders. The individual pilots have only limited culpability as, although they might suspect the information is dubious, if they are told that they are killing terrorists they have no reason to disobey that order.

The Lebanese government and people share a small amount of the blame for the deaths of Israeli civilians because they failed to deal with Hezbollah, but the apparent weakness of the Lebanese military limits just how much you can blame them for an inability to act.

|7.26.06 @ 8:29AM|#

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PEOPLE!!!

It's spelled "Israel," not "Isreal"!

I never say anything because I was under the impression that all spelling was optional on teh internets.

I wouldn't want anyone to think I was a clueles old fart or anything. :)

|7.26.06 @ 11:33AM|#

For those born in Israel it is unfair to ask them to abandon their homeland because of the threat of violence.

I thought Brian did a pretty good job of laying out the problem of what "fair" is when it comes to the ME. Forget it, that concept gets us nowhere.

But you're right, one problem with my dream world is that the Israelis won't leave anyway.

Rather than expecting all Israelis to relocate, it would be far more achievable and far more fair to end the policy of racial preference in immigration and only move the people who are in the illegal settlements.

Can you tell me exactly which parts of Israel are "legal" according to the Arab world?

|7.26.06 @ 5:51PM|#

Genghis Kahn

Can you tell me exactly which parts of Israel are "legal" according to the Arab world?

Depends which part of the Arab world. Amongst the extremists, none of it, but the same is true amongst the hard-core Zionists that believe Arab villages in Israel and Palestine are illegal, even when they've been there for centuries. However, international law does define what is legal. Some land within Israel still legally belongs to displaced Palestinians and the settlements which were built in the occupied territories are all illegal. Get rid of those and allow the right of return and the majority of the Arab world would accept Israel. Certainly enough to make recruiting members for Hamas and Hizbollah too difficult for them to continue. The difficulty is that that would cause "demographic" problems for Israel.