Sympathy for Hezbollah?
And: Israel in Lebanon vs. Clinton in Yugoslavia
I keep hearing people on the news saying that Israel's intemperate attacks on Lebanon have generated much sympathy for Hezbollah around the world. Now, this might be so in the Middle East, but so far I've seen no evidence that it's so in the West. Needless to say, my observations are casual, hence unreliable. But what I've seen is sympathy for innocent Lebanese, and anger at Israel...but no sympathy for Hezbollah. Sympathy for innocent Lebanse is, of course, a different thing entirely.
I do hear that the attacks have generated support for Hezbollah in parts of the Middle East, even where that support was previously thin. In this way, Israel's attacks on Lebanon have been similar to Bush's invasion of Iraq: both generated support for a previously rather unpopular foe. At least Israel actually attacked the organization that had attacked them, though, so they're still one up on us. Ignoring the moral issues for now, at least Israel might be able to make this worthwhile by massively degrading Hezbollah. There can be no corresponding payoff for us.
I've also noticed that conservatives, who savaged Clinton for employing an air campaign in the former Yugoslavia, have been silent on Israel's use of the same tactics, even though they've carried them out with less skill and more civilian casualties. But today's crop of conservative leaders is adept at the use of the double-standard, as we've seen repeatedly over the course of at least the last fifteen years.
And: Israel in Lebanon vs. Clinton in Yugoslavia
I keep hearing people on the news saying that Israel's intemperate attacks on Lebanon have generated much sympathy for Hezbollah around the world. Now, this might be so in the Middle East, but so far I've seen no evidence that it's so in the West. Needless to say, my observations are casual, hence unreliable. But what I've seen is sympathy for innocent Lebanese, and anger at Israel...but no sympathy for Hezbollah. Sympathy for innocent Lebanse is, of course, a different thing entirely.
I do hear that the attacks have generated support for Hezbollah in parts of the Middle East, even where that support was previously thin. In this way, Israel's attacks on Lebanon have been similar to Bush's invasion of Iraq: both generated support for a previously rather unpopular foe. At least Israel actually attacked the organization that had attacked them, though, so they're still one up on us. Ignoring the moral issues for now, at least Israel might be able to make this worthwhile by massively degrading Hezbollah. There can be no corresponding payoff for us.
I've also noticed that conservatives, who savaged Clinton for employing an air campaign in the former Yugoslavia, have been silent on Israel's use of the same tactics, even though they've carried them out with less skill and more civilian casualties. But today's crop of conservative leaders is adept at the use of the double-standard, as we've seen repeatedly over the course of at least the last fifteen years.
posted by Winston Smith at
8:01 AM
14 Comments:
Hey Winst. There's some Western support for Hizbollah here:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_pilger/2006/07/the_heroes_of_hizbullah.html
and here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1831961,00.html?gusrc=rss
Aye carumba, that first one...
Pilger's essay is the kind of thing that makes me think of the Nietzsche quote that Winston cited: nothing harms a cause more than bad arguments in its favor. The cause I'm supporting in this debate is Lebanon's--I'll state it bluntly. On the other hand, while I understand the Lebanese point of view on Hezbollah very well and share it on certain points, I also believe that Hezbollah is a tragedy for Lebanon that should not be cheered. It is a serious impediment to Lebanon becoming a strong, stable country. With that said, I also hold Israel responsible for destabilizing Lebanon with its current war and its refusal over the past 6 years to negotiate with Lebanon over outstanding political issues (prisoners, Sheba Farms, Israeli incursions into Lebanon, etc.) The US bears some responsibility here too: it has given lip service to the Cedar Revolution while being totally inattentive to helping a fledgling democracy deal with its outstanding issues with Israel. Preoccupation with Iraq probably had something to do with that.
I don't think that Hezbollah is on the same level as al Qaida, though, and I've found Western comparisons between the two to misunderstand the Middle East and what's going on there. From the Lebanese perspective, Hezbollah is seen as a legitimate force that served a critical national purpose in the past. I predict it will eventually have to become part of the Lebanese army if this thing is going to be resolved (Lebanon will not turn on its own and start another civil war--especially not now). Sure, Hezbollah is seen as heroic by many Lebanese and Arabs, and the reasons are not THAT hard to understand. No one can dispute its fighting prowess and the fact that it has been the only Arab force to have seriously challenged Israel militarily. During Israel's 18 years in Lebanon, it was not able to eliminate Hezbollah and suffered the kinds of casualties that we are suffering in Iraq. Please don't misunderstand me: Hezbollah has been responsible for a lot of evil and terrorist actions. To the extent that anyone excuses that, they are excusing evil. But there is a historical reality here that doesn't lend the discussion to a black-and-white analysis. Hezbollah grew out of what for the Shiite Lebanese was a necessity in the early 80s--no one was protecting them from Israel's invasion. Hezbollah fought against Israel's occupation of Lebanon when no one else would. It hasn't been disarmed by Lebanon since 2000 because of its legitimacy with the Shiites, Syrian control of Lebanon until last year, and the natural unwillingness of the Lebanese to plunge themselves into another civil war. I believe it can be weakened only by a political resolution of the outstanding issues between Lebanon and Israel, which will give it no leverage in arguing for its continued existence. Too bad this could have been accomplished before this senseless and unnecessary war.
When my father was a little boy in Poland, the streets of Europe were covered with graffiti, "Jews, go back to Palestine," or sometimes worse: "Dirty Yids, piss off to Palestine." When my father revisited Europe fifty years later, the walls were covered with new graffiti, "Jews, get out of Palestine."---Amos Oz
So, is the suggestion here supposed to be that anyone who thinks that Israel has acted wrongly in Lebanon is as bad as the Nazis?
I just want to be clear on this.
The suggestion here is that while the Jews fight for their very survival, they are held to the most absolute standards of prudence while their would-be exterminators are held to none at all.
Leaving the moral tut-tutting that the luxury of our living rooms affords us, living rooms on which no missiles are presently falling, the morality of the real world is that you don't let your children die while you fish for a diplomatic solution.
The West sits comfortably now because Dresden was firebombed and Hiroshima was nuked. We feel bad about it and all, but not that bad.
I don't think Israel is being held to an unreasonable standard.
No reasonable person denies Israel's right to go after its attackers...but an air campaign against an enemy that is mixed in with civilians seems far too indiscriminate.
Personally, I'm not holding them up to any standard that I wouldn't use for us...or for anyone else.
I have a few questions Tom: (1) Can you please respond to Winston's question above about your subtle quote that seems to suggest that critics of Israel are anti-semites? (2) How can Israel's existence (I assume you meant Israel and not all Jews) be at stake when it has nuclear weapons and if the world's only superpower has its back? (3) Should we be lax in our moral standards with regard to the Palestinians, whose national and physical existence has been at stake for over 50 years? (4) Does the morality of the real world have any limits, or would it be acceptable for Israel to carpet bomb, ethnically cleanse, or nuke Lebanon for kidnapping its soldiers and firing these missiles?
These are not intended to be rhetorically charged questions--I just don't think you're being clear about the positions you are advocating.
They're quite aware of the morality of a comfortable chair thousands of miles away, WS. But they are unwilling to sacrifice their children to it.
Neither is it reasonable to expect them to do so. It is human nature to protect one's own, and any attempt at moral calculus that doesn't accomodate human nature is useless abstraction. That's my position, Jared. They simply don't care what you think, and I cannot blame them.
Anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism is a tricky trap. Let's just say that particularly in Europe, and certainly in the Muslim world, there is considerable overlap.
"World opinion" would be considerably different if the suffering of the Israeli people and the perfidy of their mortal enemies were given as much play. But Jews in Israel have been routinely slaughtered by Arabs for 58 years, and "the world" has not given a good goddamn. And if you think the current episode is a result of Israeli political "immorality," I must respectfully disagree.
I appreciate the attempt at fairness of your questions, Jared, but I'm kinda way back at Hobbes, as is the entire Middle East. I don't expect to foist any Kantian morality on them.
I don't understand this comment, Tom. Almost everybody around these parts agrees that Hezbollah's tactics of attacking Israeli civilians is completely off the charts. What, exactly, is there to discuss about that?
And, since nobody expects any better from Hezbollah, I ask again: what's to discuss?
Israel, on the other hand, is a democracy, basically a Western country, on of our allies, and, allegedly, against attacking civilians.
Israel puts itself in the moral ballpark, and is allegedly trying to wage a just war. Nobody's holding them up to unreasonable standards...I, anyway, am trying to hold them up to the correct standards, the reasonable ones, the ones we'd expect ourselves to meet...
The ones, incidentally, we tried to meet in the Balkans... And, incidentally, remember how the Republicans complained about Clinton's far more successful and far less indiscriminate air campaign? If we even hold Israel up to the standards that *American conservatives* (usually no fans of too much caution merely to avoid civilian casualties) urged back then, they fall short.
The conservatives on the Kosovo/Serb thing is a little too et quoque at this point, WS. My memory doesn't match up with yours as to the extent of the opposition, and besides, I speak only for myself here.
And I'm sorry my point is still unclear to you and guest-WS, who is considerably nicer than you. I'm being as plain as I can. I've written the same thing a number of times now here, and it was understood when I've cyberpenned it elsewhere. This is not about your morality or even mine. I cannot ask Israel or anyone else to let their children die over my moral squeamishness. They owe no one the lives of their children. It's a reality thing, and when the US found itself in similar yet less grave and immediate circumstances, Dresden and Hiroshima followed.
I can't stipulate that Israel's campaign is indiscriminate, either. But Hizbollah's rockets certainly are. I appreciate any lip service paid to that reality.
I continue to reject the argument that reserving the bulk of one's criticism for those who hold themselves to a discernable moral standard is the only useful thing people like us can do. (If you recall my little chat with Hilzoy...)
In fact, if "world opinion," and specifically the Western left which, to my mind is the swing vote if not guiding force, got Israel's back a little more often rather than in its face, it is my opinion that Hizbollah, et al., wouldn't be under the impression they can get away with this shit.
But in the current environment, mostly they do.
If you want peace with Israel, you tend to get it, as Egypt and Jordan can attest.
I'm still not getting it, Tom. You're going to defend Israel's actions by comparing them to *Dresden*??? I mean, that's good in that it clarifies your position, and, perhaps, good in that it clarifies mine: I won't defend what we did at Dresden. (Hiroshima--a much closer call--shouldn't be lumped in with Dresden.)
Again: being threatened doesn't mean that you get to do absolutely *anything* in response. Even if your kids are in danger, you don't get to kill another innocent person's kids to save them. (Insert complexifying details here.)
What you don't seem to understand is that this *is* about morality, as Aquinas would agree. It's a *paradigm example* of a moral issue.
When push comes to shove here it sounds like you fall back on the law of the jungle. But if we're going to do that, why apply in arbitrarily? Why not 'if someone takes your land, you get to kill his children'? Then--on a certain plausible construal of history--Hezbollah's doing just fine.
Well, pinging Aquinas sure pushes my buttons, you sly devil, you. But remember that I wrote this isn't about your morality or even mine. (Nor did I stipulate that Israel is being indiscriminate.)
My point is that desperate people do desperate things. It is my opinion that Israel is always desperate, no matter how civilized they appear.
Dresden is an explorable moral dilemma, but before the US nuked Japan, it firebombed Tokio (as we spelled it then). My point being that the US didn't conform to the standards that Israel hasn't come close to violating.
As for the rest of the standards we hold ourselves (and Israel) to, per Kosovo, what can I say?
We have an epistemological crisis about what was putatatively the greatest moral triumph of the Clinton Administration. (And do recall, I join you in being good with it.)
Yeah, if by "epistemological crisis", you mean bullshit masquerading as *the other side of the story*, why then, I guess you're right.
http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/a_simple_request/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home