In brief: Why I think the Israeli bombing of Lebanon is wack.

EVENT

Lest I look back on this thing in a year and think I wasn't paying attention to what Jeff Danziger calls "the beginning of World War III."

Gemma has some worthwhile thoughts on the subject.

Like so many issues (see Dead Man's Chest below), the ability to take a truly informed stance on an issue is outstripped by the number of issues that compete for a truly informed stance. I suppose that I've given Flint and my career priority, and after that a couple personal interests here and there, but I hate to think that I completely lack a perspective (however general) on the present situation in the Middle East.

It seems to me, firstoff, that all proposed solutions to terrorism are short-term. That is, unless Israel is prepared to take out all of their enemies at once, which at this moment would begin with Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran and end God knows where, the most they can do is deplete their enemies' forces and will and take away their weapons. The best bargain here will cost them at least a whole generation of Palestinians and Lebanese with a head full of memories of the Israelis dropping bombs on their neighborhoods.

It also seems that the "they threw the first stone" argument is problematic here; we expect Hezbollah to act as terrorists because they... well, are. Which is largely why the Palestinians isolated themselves internationally upon the popular victory of Hamas. Hamas and Hezbollah, however, are not your typical Lebanese any more than your average conservative bombs abortion clinics or your average liberal spikes trees. Israel, on the other hand, should place a premium on being perceived as a credible, legitimate power. The degree to which Lebanese civilian casualties have outstripped the Israelis (bear in mind, no war has been declared) really should raise all kinds of alarm among its neighbors.

In short, I see all the evidence of a double-standard here, and none of the counterarguments I've encountered seem particularly convincing. Yes, Israel retains the right to protect its border and retaliate against acts of aggression. The extent of the Israeli response, however, has invalidated its own legitimacy by perpetrating upon others the very offences toward which the response is directed.

(Some might point out that this is *really* about captive soldiers, but the political arena seems downright ludicrous on this front; more than ten times the number of Israeli soldiers have been killed fighting for soldiers' recoveries than those actually kidnaped.)

I don't have a convenient solution.

I do agree that there is a problem with restraint in that it suggests weakness and is easily exploited. But a strict offense doesn't seem to be working wonders either. Ultimately, I think both war and peace must be approached with a a mind for consistency and an expectation of subtlety, and perhaps most importantly, allowing short-term compromise for long-term stability and prosperity. There are ways to not capitulate to terrorist other than bombing Beirut neighborhoods.

And lest we forget, the U.S. is guilty of complicity here, at the very least. Our lack of forsight and circumspection has made our own position almost as compromised in the Middle East, and just as credibility challenged, as Israel itself. One might even argue that the U.S., having a greater objective distance (ie. we're not being bombed by Israel or Hezbollah) should demonstrate greater equanimity.

For all of our virtues, I find, we tend to fall down on any issue that won't resolve favorably in less than the next decade.

END OF POST.