War in the Middle East is a minor inconvenience to most of us in North America. A rise in the price of gas is about as profoundly as we are affected. We have no stake in this conflict unless we have some familial connection to the region.
It's easy to sit back from the comfort of our privileged world and espouse on a situation that we can't imagine and will likely never experience but we do it, I suppose in an attempt to make sense of it all.
As I've wandered around reading opinions on this current crisis I've been surprised by the stupid analogies I've seen which seek to condemn Israel for it's response to the kidnappings and breach of its border.
Amongst the stupidest are: fighting a gnat with a hand grenade & attacking an ant with a hammer
Those who indulge in such inane comparisons might consider: fighting fire with fire or better still, a fight for one's life. These seem more accurate and still don't imply correct action on the part of the Israelis, but also don't understate the devastation that is being caused by Hizbollah.
It is disingenuous to compare the State of Israel with Hizbollah and pretend that a giant is swatting a fly. It is unfair to suggest that because of its superior equipment, infrastructure etc. that Israel should not respond or should respond weakly, to an overt act of war. The more realistic comparison would be made between Israel and every other country in the world -- what would the international expectations be of say . . . Germany . . . or Italy . . . or Japan . . . or Russia . . . or France . . . or China . . . or Canada --- if a terrorist organization, which had governmental recognition/ approval from its host country -- were to slip beneath the border between any of these sovereign nations and an unfriendly adjoining nation and murder and abduct military personnel?
What if diplomacy with this unfriendly nation had never worked in the past?
What if despite security concerns, you'd removed troops from their side of the border in good faith several years previous, but still could not guarantee the safety of your citizens because the terrorist organisation had been using that same area since your withdrawal, to launch attacks deliberately targeting civilians?
What if you offered to cease fire in the present crisis if your soldiers were returned but your offer was rebuffed?
There's much more to it, I know. I know Israel holds prisoners that Hizbollah and others dispute are terrorists. I know that Israel's superior firepower has meant more civilian casualties on the side of the Lebanese. I also know that some people will always see Israel as wrong (or right) and vice versa.
But we on the opposite side of the world who are thinking of these things should remember that of those seven nations mentioned above, only one has never invaded another country/initiated a war through beligerant action/joined forces with another nation to initiate war.
None of the above countries has ever responded to an act of war by another nation/faction within a nation, by turning the other cheek.
All but one of those nations have colonized, occupied or otherwise imposed themselves on a sovereign country and at least three continue to do so to this day.
All but one of these nations has used its superior military to suppress the goals of a nation under its control --- either currently or within the last 60 years.
None of these nations has ever willingly returned territory it gained through war -- particularly in those instances when they did not initiate the war.
Compare these nations to Israel because that is a more reasonable comparison. And remember, Canada is the only exception on the list -- and even Canada, provoked by the Yanks when they came north in 1812, didn't try to talk things out. We used all means at our disposal to fight because they breached our border. Our goal back then was not to thwart annihilation, only annexation and yet still we responded to an act of war, with war.
Even if people persist in drawing comparisons between Israel and its enemies, Israel still compares favourably, if only because of it's ultimate goals -- peace and co-existence with its neighbours. The fact that Israel is surrounded by countries/factions whose ambitions are diametrically opposed to those goals, puts Israel in a unique disadvantage -- a show of force draws criticism from Europe and the UN; a show of weakness emboldens those who pose the threat.
Israel is faced with a choice between criticism, and continued, perhaps escalating assaults and threats against its citizens. There is no such thing as 'doing the right' thing in war -- to Israel, there is capitulation and there is survival. It is easy not to see it in those terms from the comfort of our livingrooms.
canadianna
(edited for spelling thanks to 'grammar nazi' ;> )
16 comments:
Another well written piece. I wish I could do that too.
You've pointed out quite accurately how a double standard is always applied to Israel even as it is besieged on two borders by terrorist orgs. rocket assaults. The G-8 has unanimously stated "Israel has the right to defend itself" -- the next question is how will the international community aid in Israel's defence despite its first class defence capabilities.
Hisballah, Hamas, Al Qaeda and myriad hidden "cells" are conspiring to 'eradicate' Israel. Their statements are accumulating and the factions should meet with swift reprisals at every instance of aggression. Your editorial 'circled the wagons' so to speak in reference to the main stage players and the positions that are forming up on the issue and maybe just in time.
During the evacuation process being undertaken now by all affected countries it is imperative that authorities watch for suitcase nukes and those espousing suicide bombing techniques. These evacuations provide a perfect opportunity for a 'loose cannon' -- literally to cause more havoc. The "death cult" is losing its grip and that may be their own deathknell. "there is a time for war..." IMHO, it is now.
Good post, however I think there is a weakness in your argument.
What if diplomacy with this unfriendly nation had never worked in the past? What if despite security concerns, you'd removed troops from their side of the border in good faith several years previous, but still could not guarantee the safety of your citizens because the terrorist organisation had been using that same area since your withdrawal, to launch attacks deliberately targeting civilians? What if you offered to cease fire in the present crisis if your soldiers were returned but your offer was rebuffed?
You are right in that Israel, to their great credit, has done these things, however they have done them with the nation of Lebanon, not with Hezbollah. Lebanon is the nation that can be negotiated with, not Hezbollah. Lebanon, until last year, was directly controlled by the Syrian government for the last 30 years and in order to form a government at all had to allow Hezbollah to be partners. This can be viewed as a travesty, but in practical terms it was a political reality that demonstrated how weak the government in Lebanon actually is. If there was any chance that Hezbollah could have been controlled or driven out without sending the country spinning back into civil war, I'm sure they would have been happy to oblige.
What is at the heart of the public's animosity toward Israel's actions this week is not that they are defending themselves, but that they are attacking Lebanon, not Hezbollah. The nation of Lebanon is every bit the victim of Hezbollah as Israel, and moreso now that its civilians and infrastructure are being destroyed.
It is hard to say what the best course of action would be for Israel, but I would suggest that bombing the infrastructure of an already unstable neighbour is unlikely to have a positive outcome. Israel is only going to be a stable and safe country when it is surrounded by stable and safe neighbours. This does nothing to that end.
Yes, the Hezbollah attack directly on Israel's soldiers was brazen and hit them where it hurts most politically. It might well be that the Israeli government was pinned by domestic politics similar to Lebanon, however they have played right into Hezbollah's hands.
Perhaps they could have re-occupied part of the south of the country with minimal loss of life, maybe simply ratcheting up the tension with Lebanon diplomatically might have forced them to do something they were otherwise scared to do? I don't know the situation that well, but I just have to think that there is a smarter way of working this situation.
I disagree with anonymous - two captured soldiers is not a reason to drag a region to war. Something must be done, yes, but there is no way that the lives of two soldiers is going to be worth the cost that Israel and Lebanon are paying now.
Nicely written!
Please don't consider this a grammar Nazi post but it's 'breach' you are looking for and not 'breech.'
*sorry*
In discussions with people who are critical of Israel's response I keep asking them how they would respond if they were shelled every day since giving up a "province" (Gaza), a move which was supposed to result in a complete stoppage of aggression against the "Zionist entity".
I sincerely hope Israel obliterates Hamas and Hezbollah.
Leave. Not. One. Standing.
kevvyd: "two captured soldiers is not a reason to drag a region to war"
Yes, it is, because those "captured soldiers" were "captured" on their native soil.
Last time I looked, that's considered an act of war. And how does one attack Hezbollah and not Lebanon? The same way one attacks the Taliban & not Afghanistan? Oh, wait a minute, Afghanis are dying too.
candace:
that's considered an act of war
You're right, it is an act of war, but that still does not mean war is a necessity. It was an act of direct provocation on the part of Hezbollah, one that I'm sure they knew would draw military reprisal from Israel. Why do you think they wanted to do that? It is a pretty safe bet that their goal, since they are funded by Syria, is to destabilize Lebanon and thus make it easier for Syria to move back in. Is that somehow in Israel's best interest?
Canuck: It is obvious that the Lebanese government could not control Hezbollah, but it is an assertion to state that they were not serious about it. To whom would they have turned? What aid would they have requested? In hindsight it looks like they should have shouted out, but that's just hindsight. I haven't seen any posts by you or anyone else before last week calling for immediate aid to the Lebanese government.
kevvyd -- that still does not mean that war is a necessity.
I suppose if Israel just asked Hizbollah nicely, they'd sent back the soldiers and stop lobbing missiles.
As for aid to the Lebanese government --- given that the government has no control over a significant portion of the country and its population --- who do you really think would be the beneficiary of said aid? And if you meant military aid -- do you suppose that Hizbollah thinks much more of International Peacekeepers than it does of the Israelis?
Think it through from the perspective of Hizbollah -- if there were money they would take it and if there were international military intervention, they would seek to destroy it too.
You're thinking from the perspective of a reasonable person and projecting your rational thought on people who are simply not rational by Western standards.
Until Westerners stop projecting our morality and reality on the Middle East, we will continue to let them away with murder.
canadi-anna
First, thank you for disagreeing with me without insulting - it's rare. (Not the disagreeing part ;)
I was actually commenting on -canuck-s suggestion that the Lebanese government wasn't serious about controlling Hezbollah because they didn't go to the international community for help. I have no idea how that would have worked. If the problem at hand is that Hezbollah is the real control in Lebanon, then the constructive approach to take is to strengthen the positive elements of the existing government, not to try to kill Hezbollah. As the Americans are now learning in Iraq, you can't simply kill terrorists and expect to win - the inevitable collateral damage (ugh!) only serves to create more.
You're thinking from the perspective of a reasonable person and projecting your rational thought on people who are simply not rational by Western standards.
This is always the risk, but I think we run a greater risk by assuming that these groups exist only to create havoc and destruction. It might well be that the core members have demands that cannot be realisticaly met ("drive the Jews into the Mediterranean", etc.), but for membership, collusion, and support they have to draw upon a population that in all likelihood has far more reasonable demands.
By further weakening the Lebanese government with these attacks, the Israelis are, in my opinion, playing into Hezbollah's hands.
kevvyd --but I think we run a greater risk by assuming that these groups exist only to create havoc and destruction
What scares me is that you're serious about this.
Joining Hizbollah is kind of like joining the NDP -- a member must share the ideology with the group. While the NDP is committed to noble causes like the environment and fighting poverty, Hizbollah's founding charter begins and ends with the destruction of Israel and its inhabitants.
Even if somewhere amongst Hizbollah members there is some small yearning for peace, that voice will not be heard simply because it is counter to the groups raison d'etre.
canadi-anna:
a member must share the ideology with the group.
To some extent this is true, but not always. If a person needs help and it is offered, the person or group offering it will be viewed in a better light. If this help is the only help offered, the person or group offering it might be seen as the only way. I'm not saying that everyone receiving help from Hamas or Hezbollah will voluntarily strap a bomb to the waist and jump on a bus, but that when a friend asks them if another "friend" can stay at their place for the weekend and no one is to know, they might be inclined to say yes. If enough people give such passive support, there will always be the odd extremist that will sign up for the 72 olives.
-cancuk-: You're right, with the core membership, there is no middle ground. However the fact is that these groups would have a much harder time of it if the general population were against what they stand for. The problem is, we have not really given them a good reason to be against them. Therefore there really are only two options - convince the Lebanese people that there is a better and more stable future without Hezbollah, or kill the entire citizenry.
There are those that would like to believe that bombing southern Lebanon into rubble might cow the population into turning against Hezbollah, but that has not happened in the past. What has happened is that you simply harden people's hearts against your cause, and therefore it is a step backward.
kevvyd -- we have not really given them a good reason to be against them.
Right there -- that's the problem -- you blame 'us' for people in the Middle East agreeing with and/or allowing these armed groups with their psychotic agendas.
The paternalistic attitude of the West is probably the biggest problem for developing countries.
When does being a responsible citizen of the world become their responsibility? Don't tell me that they don't see on the television that other countries don't live the way they do -- when is it going to dawn on them that only they can make their own lives and their own country better?
It isn't enough for 'us to convince them theirs another way' -- they know it. They have to want it. They have to want peace and prosperity more than they want vengence and bitterness.
Where is the Arab world's Ghandi, Mandela or King?
There's
canadi-anna,
you blame 'us' for people in the Middle East agreeing with and/or allowing these armed groups with their psychotic agendas
I'm not blaming anyone; the situation simply is as it is. The Lebanese people have known nothing but war, occuupation, civil war, and terrorism for over thirty years; it is not going to change overnight. In point of fact, Lebanon is barely a country, having been occupied in part by Israel until six years ago and Syria until last year, and the whole time infested with groups like Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood. The citizenry is in very little position to control its own fate without outside help.
It isn't enough for 'us to convince them there's another way' -- they know it. They have to want it.
We don't really know what the want, do we? I might be dead wrong and maybe they simply blindly hate Jews and will sacrifice anything to see Israel burn. But, do you really think that given the choice between prosperity and stability or unending war someone would choose the latter?
They have to want peace and prosperity more than they want vengence and bitterness.
And I can't think of a better way to get rid of vengeance and bitterness than destroying the little they have with artillery!
I'm impressed with your site, very nice graphics!
»
Great post, Canadianna! Your "Grammar-nazi" sure is a lot nicer than mine!!!
Post a Comment