Why Israel's Position is Eminently Justifiable
I'm amazed that nobody (at least not that I've seen) has pointed out Israel's fundamental policy when it comes to dealing with terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hizbollah. It's very simple, and can be summed up in a single sentence that should be familiar to everybody:
"We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them." -- United States, National Security Strategy of the United States of America (2002), p.5
8 comments:
And Israel's terrorist policies have sure done a lot of good toward establishing peace in the middle east, providing Palestinians with their own state, and avoiding unnecessary bloodshed.
There's a lot wrong within that flippant comment:
1. Israel's policies are not "terrorist" policies in nature, intent, or effect; they are the legitimate actions of a state that has to defend itself against terrorist networks and a deeply corrupted "state" structure that does less to advance the interests of Palestinian civilians than its own interests to provoke further violence and deny Israel the very right to exist.
2. Israel has done more to establish peace than any other state in the Middle East. After its unilateral withdrawals from large sections of territory it occupied AFTER it was attacked by other states and terrorist organizations that were allowed to operate freely in neighbouring states, it has still found itself targeted for violence by non-democratic regimes that deny its right to exist and would prefer to spend their resources on arms and supporting terror than advancing peace or providing a viable two-state solution.
3. Why on earth would Israel concede to a Palestinian state that neither acknowledges its right to exist, renounces the use of terrorist activities, ends it support for other terrorist networks, possesses any semblance of democratic and representative institutions or the rule of law, or has the capabilities to behave as a sovereign state that builds towards peace? The fact of the matter is that Israel has conceded large swaths of territory that would be the foundation of a future Palestinian state. It turned over control of much of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to Arafat, who, in typical dictator form, used that land to enrich himself and the elements that were also opposed to true peace. Why is it that Hamas was elected to power? Because the PLO has done virtually nil to provide the basic necessities required of a state: social services such as health care and education, security, and legitimacy.
4. Israel has always gone to great lengths to avoid killing civilians. This is in stark contrast to Palestinian terrorists that purposefully target cafes, restaurants, banks, and other areas in which large numbers of people just going about their days congregate. Are you actually trying to draw a moral par between a democratic state that accidentally sometimes kills civilians and abuses human rights, and an authoritarian regime and its terrorist supporters who always deliberately kill civilians and human rights? Because no such moral par exists; Israel regularly expresses its regret at the loss of innocent life which it, like all democracies, establishes a high premium, while the Palestinian leadership rewards the families of suicide bombers and expresses no such regret.
What we're talking about here is a free society having to combat a fear society, the latter of which exploits to maximum effect any actions undertaken against it to portray it as suppression or evidence that the free society it seeks to destroy and undermine is evil and deserves to be killed like the "cockroaches" they supposedly are. At some point Israel has to say "enough" and take the gloves off. This entire situation, which will probably escalate into war, is the exclusive responsibility of Hamas and Hezbollah, who committed acts of war by kidnapping Israeli soldiers during a period of relative peace. If Iran were to pop into Iraq and abduct a few American soldiers, what do you think the response would be? All of this could have been prevented if the governments in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon unequivocally and uncompromisingly said, "Give the soldiers back." They didn't do that.
Oh, I hate the whole situation - it bothers me when I don't know enough to come up with a solution.
The one thing that makes me uneasy here (Israel pulled out of Gaza and has deserved some signs of peace-searching from Palestine, etc) is that everyone says Lebanon (which I've never visited) is a fairly pro-Western country that we could be using as a democratic foothold.
The problem here seems to be Syria-Iran, not Lebanon, and I'm uneasy - well, frankly, I'm quite scared here - at the idea of making life hard for a pro-West population.
I know, I know, Hezbollah is in Lebanon, but Lebanon doesn't seem to have any real power (to my amateur eyes) to stop or turn them in, the way the Taliban did for Bin Laden.
I wonder if we should be madly befriending the Lebanese and aiding them in total independence and ridding themselves of Hezbollah. In the long-run, they might make a better ally than target.
Again, i'm anxious and uneasy. I might not be making a lot of sense.
if Lebanon unequivocally and uncompromisingly said, "Give the soldiers back." They didn't do that.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here - I've never been to Lebanon, but I always read/hear that Lebanon has no control over Hezbollah and that Hezbollah is essentially Iran and Syria using Lebanon's geographical position.
I agree with your list of points. And listen, I've usually been sympathetic to the Palestinians, oppressed and robbed by their masters. (The PLO, I mean, not Israel) But the Gaza Withdrawal has really changed that for me.
Obviously stating that Israel's policies are terrorist is lazy logic as the kidnappings occurred on Israeli soil. The Palestinians electing a terrorist organization to lead their "country" obviously was not constructive to the peace process.
However, my feelings is along the lines of Putin. Although Hesbollah clearly initiated the conflict, both sides are at fault.
However, Israel is not acting proportionately. Earlier this year, the Lebanase made their stand against excessive Syrian influence. However, Lebanon is still weak and Israel could seriously use an ally in Lebanon. Shelling Beirut seems excessive and I believe that Israel simply should have stopped in the southern regions of Lebanon where the attacks on Haifa are originating. I believe that Israel needs a stronger, independent Lebanon and should be working with Egypt to obtain the soldiers.
Brian, that's my sense - Lebanon seems to need help here from us (ie. the West: UK, US, Canada, Aust, Israel, etc) rather than bombing, they seem more a pawn than a villian.
But I'm not intimately familiar with Lebanon.
Jason,
Good questions on Lebanon, I'm not 100% up to speed on them myself, but I do know that Hezbollah, like Hamas in the Territories, has elected a number of people into the Lebanese government, and they do have cabinet representation. Like Hamas, they also provide a lot of social services that the legitimate state, such as it is, does not or cannot. From that I think it follows that the government *should* have some measure of influence over Hezbollah, and its elected members should be using their clout to get the terrorist wing of the group under control. I'm not sure how big their representation in the parliament is, obviously large enough to merit some of their numbers being in the government, but those politicians should definitely be taking the lead.
I certainly share your concerns about a larger conflagration taking place because of all of this. After 7 Canadians were killed yesterday in Lebanon, there's a much larger prospect of us and the rest of the West getting directly involved. I like Tony Blair's suggestion of a multinational force going in there to put an end to the bloodshed and get some sort of settlement process started. My concern is that neither Hezbollah/Iran/Syria or possibly even Israel, who seem committed to eradicatin Hezbollah, actually wants that to occur.
Well, colour me taken aback, sir - I had no idea there were elected Hezbollah members in the Lebanese government. That's my shocker of the day.
(I think eradicating Hezbollah is a good idea, though how one'd go about it I really can't say)
I'm awfully nervous about a huge multi-nation war in the Middle-East. God, we'd be better to evacuate Israel and set it up in Arizona or something, and then just ignore the Middle East until it matures into functioning democracy. (He says with a wave of his imaginary magical wand...)
Post a Comment