Back to our usually scheduled programming
Jul. 25th, 2006 07:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI've been, largely, out of the loop, for the past month.
No news, to speak of, in Inverness (some world cup, and scrolling headlines were about it) and a bit of blogging in Kiev. But the big news is Lebanon. On first blush it seems to me Isreal has vastly overstepped reasonable response. The core argument seems to be that Hezbollah's being, "allowed" to remain in Lebanon is tacit support for them on the part of the people and the Gov't and so those groups are guilty, and Israel is justified in killing/destroying them by way of response for the provocation of a pair of soldiers being captured.
On it's face this is farcial. If the LAPD were to make this argument to justify wiping out a couple of city block in South Central because the Crips, or Bloods, had killed a cop (or two) we'd condemn it out of hand.
But no. We've been treated to no small number of justifications for this; despite it being patently unjust, as well as a violation of the laws and practices of war (which requires that responses to provocation be proportional; outlaws reprisal and collective punishment,[which is being practiced, as reported in the Jerusalem Post] the taking of hostages, or the deliberate targetting of civilians).
Alan Dershowitz (who also thinks torture might be acceptable, if we made a legal mechanism for getting it approved; by warrant, beforehand, but I digress) seems to think this is perfectly normal. In fact he seems to think that someone who makes a threat is actually asking for consent, and that any such consent is voluntary.
Hezbollah and Hamas militants, on the other hand, are difficult to distinguish from those “civilians” who recruit, finance, harbor and facilitate their terrorism. Nor can women and children always be counted as civilians, as some organizations do. Terrorists increasingly use women and teenagers to play important roles in their attacks. The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit.
Ponder the logical (and from recent events, sadly not absurd) the way this works. By giving notice that I have a problem with your cousin, who happens to be staying with you, and that I intend to kill him, you, by not giving him up, consented to my killing you when I firebomb your house to get to him. And the damage I do to your house, well you could have avoided that by sending him out.
That's a far more concrete example. The analogy I made to the Crips and Bloods is more apt. Becuase the IDF has admitted to taking out random buildings, in the general area Hezbollah is thought to be, and the ability to separate Hezbollah from civilian populace is slim, even harder from a couple of thousand feet in the air, or a couple of miles back.
Something like a year ago we were hearing Lebabnon's praises sung; because they had engaged in some serious democracy. Now we are seeing the lie given to the idea that democracies don't attack each other (that or one of the two nations involved isn't a democracy) and the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war is spreading. With that spread we are seeing the evils which we, as a nation, used to decry. I say used to because we have expedited the sale and delivery of the means Israel needs to continue the policy on which she is engaged.
The fact of the matter is there was no good solution to Israel's problem (the captured soldiers).
The best option, horrible though it might seem, is to admit they've been captured by a hostile force and either consign them to their fate (which would either be hostage, or POW; for reasons of policy Israel holds to the former, though present events make the latter more reasonable).
The other options are to attempt a rescue, negotiate for their release or engage in some form of retaliation.
They opted for the latter, but the problem is they didn't have any real target to engage.
Further, from a moral standpoint, it's reprehensible. How many Lebanese are equal to one Israeli? The honest answer, is one. The moral answer is none. The only person who can be held to account is a member of Hezbollah (and Dershowitz is wrong when he makes the Ward Churchillian argument that every person in Lebanon who isn't actively trying to expunge Hezbollah is complicit to the point of guilt).
I don't hold to the idea that somehow Israel has to be more moral than it's foes. I merely argue it ought to be held to the same standards as anyone else.
From a practical standpoint it's foolish. There is no way to root out a problem like Hezbollah without going in and rooting them out, building by building; taking and holding ground. If they were doing that, I would say it was an over-reaction to the provocation (just as it would be were the US to sieze Canadian ports of entry because so many terrorists have come to the U.S. through Canada) but it would be understandable, and have some level of both proportion, and (in theory) success.
The present policy is both futile, and counter-productive, as it will create new members of Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. and (when it fails, as this policy will) it will show Israel to be lacking in means, which will encourage those who refuse to acknowledge her right to exist; and work for her destruction, to greater acts of provocation.
(p.s. For those who wish to read all of what Dershowitz said it's here)
No news, to speak of, in Inverness (some world cup, and scrolling headlines were about it) and a bit of blogging in Kiev. But the big news is Lebanon. On first blush it seems to me Isreal has vastly overstepped reasonable response. The core argument seems to be that Hezbollah's being, "allowed" to remain in Lebanon is tacit support for them on the part of the people and the Gov't and so those groups are guilty, and Israel is justified in killing/destroying them by way of response for the provocation of a pair of soldiers being captured.
On it's face this is farcial. If the LAPD were to make this argument to justify wiping out a couple of city block in South Central because the Crips, or Bloods, had killed a cop (or two) we'd condemn it out of hand.
But no. We've been treated to no small number of justifications for this; despite it being patently unjust, as well as a violation of the laws and practices of war (which requires that responses to provocation be proportional; outlaws reprisal and collective punishment,[which is being practiced, as reported in the Jerusalem Post] the taking of hostages, or the deliberate targetting of civilians).
Alan Dershowitz (who also thinks torture might be acceptable, if we made a legal mechanism for getting it approved; by warrant, beforehand, but I digress) seems to think this is perfectly normal. In fact he seems to think that someone who makes a threat is actually asking for consent, and that any such consent is voluntary.
Hezbollah and Hamas militants, on the other hand, are difficult to distinguish from those “civilians” who recruit, finance, harbor and facilitate their terrorism. Nor can women and children always be counted as civilians, as some organizations do. Terrorists increasingly use women and teenagers to play important roles in their attacks. The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit.
Ponder the logical (and from recent events, sadly not absurd) the way this works. By giving notice that I have a problem with your cousin, who happens to be staying with you, and that I intend to kill him, you, by not giving him up, consented to my killing you when I firebomb your house to get to him. And the damage I do to your house, well you could have avoided that by sending him out.
That's a far more concrete example. The analogy I made to the Crips and Bloods is more apt. Becuase the IDF has admitted to taking out random buildings, in the general area Hezbollah is thought to be, and the ability to separate Hezbollah from civilian populace is slim, even harder from a couple of thousand feet in the air, or a couple of miles back.
Something like a year ago we were hearing Lebabnon's praises sung; because they had engaged in some serious democracy. Now we are seeing the lie given to the idea that democracies don't attack each other (that or one of the two nations involved isn't a democracy) and the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war is spreading. With that spread we are seeing the evils which we, as a nation, used to decry. I say used to because we have expedited the sale and delivery of the means Israel needs to continue the policy on which she is engaged.
The fact of the matter is there was no good solution to Israel's problem (the captured soldiers).
The best option, horrible though it might seem, is to admit they've been captured by a hostile force and either consign them to their fate (which would either be hostage, or POW; for reasons of policy Israel holds to the former, though present events make the latter more reasonable).
The other options are to attempt a rescue, negotiate for their release or engage in some form of retaliation.
They opted for the latter, but the problem is they didn't have any real target to engage.
Further, from a moral standpoint, it's reprehensible. How many Lebanese are equal to one Israeli? The honest answer, is one. The moral answer is none. The only person who can be held to account is a member of Hezbollah (and Dershowitz is wrong when he makes the Ward Churchillian argument that every person in Lebanon who isn't actively trying to expunge Hezbollah is complicit to the point of guilt).
I don't hold to the idea that somehow Israel has to be more moral than it's foes. I merely argue it ought to be held to the same standards as anyone else.
From a practical standpoint it's foolish. There is no way to root out a problem like Hezbollah without going in and rooting them out, building by building; taking and holding ground. If they were doing that, I would say it was an over-reaction to the provocation (just as it would be were the US to sieze Canadian ports of entry because so many terrorists have come to the U.S. through Canada) but it would be understandable, and have some level of both proportion, and (in theory) success.
The present policy is both futile, and counter-productive, as it will create new members of Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. and (when it fails, as this policy will) it will show Israel to be lacking in means, which will encourage those who refuse to acknowledge her right to exist; and work for her destruction, to greater acts of provocation.
(p.s. For those who wish to read all of what Dershowitz said it's here)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Much agreed
Date: 2006-07-25 03:41 pm (UTC)What I fail to get (and what will make far more Hamas/Hezbollah followers-supporters, because it is so senseless): Israel told people they needed to evacuate from southern Lebanon. Then they started picking off cars and vans with big ammo. Killing innocent people trying (at their orders) to flee is beyond wrong, it is deliberately creating enemies among the survivors. It is so stupid. And it doesn't sound like random 'oops, a bomb fell here, a bomb fell there'.
Just my 2 cents. You're a voice of reason, keep it up.
Paula Helm Murray
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 03:46 pm (UTC)By this logic, every single person who voluntarily remained behind in New Orleans was complicit in the looting going on after the hurricane.
I agree that there are no good answers to Israel's situation, and I also agree that their actions have been wildly disproportionate. This all seems like pretext, to me. It's not about the kidnapped soldiers at all, but about reshaping the political landscape in Lebanon, I think. (Though it's a reprehensible way to go about it.) It may even go further than that; there is talk that this will eventually lead to Syria and Iran, with our support, and given our relationship with Iran at this point it seems all too plausible.
Re: Much agreed
Date: 2006-07-25 03:48 pm (UTC)We said anyone who stayed in the city was to be viewed as a hostile.
We then prohibited men of military age from leaving.
Then we went in to clear the city of hostiles.
Lo!, and behold, lots of people shot at us.
I know what, were I one of the people turned back in such a manner I would have believed the leaflets, and decided to take an honor guard with me, esp. after the shooting started.
I used to have some respect for Dershowitz. Then he started (in 2002, about the time the Isreali Army said they were against it) speaking out in favor of "torture warrants" [which I find more evil than torture which happens outside of law, even if given a wink and a nod), and lost most of his credit with me.
This, well it was the final nail in the coffin.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 03:52 pm (UTC)Which makes the entire Iraq mess seem insane, as Hussein was helping to contain Iran, the present Gov't of Iraq is interested in supporting Iran, and failed staes (which is what reports say Iraq is becoming, and is the more likely result of the destruction of infrastructure, and the demonstration of governmental impotence is likely to create in Lebabon) are more likely to foster groups like Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, and Al Qa'eda.
The mind reels.
TK
I guess I see
Date: 2006-07-25 04:09 pm (UTC)Re: I guess I see
Date: 2006-07-25 04:27 pm (UTC)Part of the problem is the difference in terms. Hezbollah sees itself as being part of a partisan/indigenous resistance. As such they have, in the main, abided by the restrictions inherent to such groups (and the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as amended in 1977 by Protocol II which deals with Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts.
As such they see the triggering act to the present situation as the capture of a legitimate combantant target (i.e. soldiers of the opposition). Israel calls them terrorists (in all acts) and grants no legitimacy to their actions.
This is analogous to the Situation of the IRA, in the 1920s. Sadly the Israelis are acting more like the IRA than they are the British, as the IRA said those who were close enpough to a bomb, or burst of machine gun fire, got what they deserved because they were too close to the legitimate targets, and therefore were guilty of some sort of collaboration. They did grieve, so they said, for those who were there by mere happenstance (say those who had been taken into custody, and so were present; against their wills, when a bomb went off, but that was collateral damage, and unavoidable).
If the real problem is Iran, or Syria, then spanking Lebanon is counterproductive If a child is doing poorly on tests because he has bad instructors, do you beat him to make him study more? Or should you rather see to it that he gets better instruction?
If one has to take the most painful of high roads (and just bear the loss of those sodliers) and chage the TTP which led to the capture in the first place, then one just has to suck it up.
TK
Re: Much agreed
Date: 2006-07-25 04:45 pm (UTC)Source?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 04:46 pm (UTC)Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings compiled a convenient list of everything Israel has tried to do in Lebanon; none of these, including occupying the whole country, has worked. I don't think Israel can eliminate Hezbollah, but if they can eliminate the vast majority of Hezbollah's missiles and prevent new ones from being imported, that would be a positive step.
As for Dershowitz--feh. Israel supporters like that give support for Israel a bad name.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 04:53 pm (UTC)Look at how many people, in Isreal, have been killed.
Compare that to the cost of looking/being ineffective at damaging Hezbollah.
TK
Re: I guess I see
Date: 2006-07-25 04:57 pm (UTC)Re: Much agreed
Date: 2006-07-25 04:58 pm (UTC)2
3
4
TK
The Short Version
Date: 2006-07-25 05:04 pm (UTC)I think that if they had the power as well as the right, Israel would have chosen a more moderate policy.
Re: I guess I see
Date: 2006-07-25 05:07 pm (UTC)Look at the totals for the rocket attacks of the past couple of weeks; they are less than those of random bombings in the early '70s.
As for the occupation... the incursions (and recent re-occupation of, "settlements") as well as the continued holding of the Golan Heights (which is no small part of why Syria is willing to provide material support to Hezbollah) certainly count as provocation.
Nothing requires a resistant movement to remain in the specific territory of the occupiers. (viz. Gov'ts in exile, and the "Free French"). The question about the legitimacy of Israel is one which lots of people in the area (wrong though we think them) have decided; and they have decided Israel is illigitimate.
Pending either a total defeat (not going to happen) or a political solution, they have to be dealth with.
The better way to deal with them is to make them innefective. Ignoring them does that, better than any military solution can.
TK
Re: The Short Version
Date: 2006-07-25 05:10 pm (UTC)If they had better means they might engage in it.
It would have been completely within their rights to shoot down hostile overflights. I'm not sure just what the result of that would have been. It would certainly have changed the equation.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 05:14 pm (UTC)Re: I guess I see
Date: 2006-07-25 08:18 pm (UTC)(And all these attacks give fodder to the Israeli hawks who want to keep occupying the West Bank and Gaza until doomsday. "See?" they say. "Giving up land doesn't give Israel peace; it just lets the Arabs attack us from closer range." Since I do support an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, this worries me.)
[*]If there's a chronology that's at least as complete from a more neutral source, I'd love to see it; seeing a list of attacks on mostly-military targets described as "terrorist" makes me wince. CNN has a chronology that covers a longer time span but has fewer details.
Re: I guess I see
Date: 2006-07-25 08:58 pm (UTC)The list you give totals 23 dead (of which the majority, are in the past month, and about half are from direct exchanges of fire) in the course of 6 years. All in all, that's a price I think can be borne (then again, I think the events of that Tuesday might heve justified Afghanistan, but didn't create a state of war against "terror" and the law enforcement efforts were more in order).
Absent being a party negotiating in good faith (and that they recognized the PLO means they admit to some level of legitimacy to those who oppose them) they can't really expect their opponents to come to the table.
The only thing Isreal has answered to is force.
And the force they have used in response is disproportionate. In order to make the searching for one soldier captured by a radical group they eliminated power for all of the West Bank.
Ponder that; the only power supply, for hundreds of thousands of people, eliminated, with all the attendant harm; and risk to life and limb attendant to that as being appropriate, because it lets them search (at night) more readily for one soldier. That's a calculus which is, in a word, reprehensible. Even more so because it hasn't led to the finding of that soldier.
I know, were I a resident of the Palistinian authority how I would feel about that. It's the same way I'd feel if such a thing were done in Los Angeles (or, the example I use with my friends, imagine this (Iraq, Lebabon, insert hostile action here) were taking place in Montana... how do think it would play with the natives?
Eighteen years of occupying southern Lebanon didn't root out the hostiles they went in to get rid of. Establishing the "Greater Israel the American Fundies want to see (this to usher in the coming of the Messiah, First or Second, depending on one's stripe of fundie-ism) won't get rid of them.
The area has huge problems, tit for tat (or ten for one, which is about the number the Israelis are wreaking at the moment) isn't going to fix it.
Politics is the art of the possible, and that's what needs to be done. They ought to leave the vengeance to God.
TK
Re: The Short Version
Date: 2006-07-25 09:10 pm (UTC)But they've not bruited the loss.
TK
Re: I guess I see
Date: 2006-07-25 09:19 pm (UTC)i know how hard it is, but i think sucking it up is the best policy. because while israel has been sucking it up some, attitudes have slowly changed. they've changed among civilians in lebanon (who do not exactly love HA, and actually want them demilitarized), they've changed among palestinians, and they've even started to change among palestinian leadership. no, they haven't changed one bit amongst those who have hardened their hearts, but nothing will change those -- we can only hope to make them irrelevant over time. and we best make them irrelevant by playing to the strengths of those close to them; let them be converted (or isolated) by their own. yes, this will take a long time, because there is no trust.
it would take less time if there weren't continued provocations, mind. yes, i know there are provocations from the other side (this one was very apparently designed to throw a wrench into the process of normalization via internal pressure on hamas and HA both). thing is that somebody has to break the cycle, and if they're not doing it, then you better do it, or you get decades of bloodshed accompanied by screams of "he started it!". i mean, how often does this one have to replay itself before people grok it?
if instead you take out your grievances with some people on the people surrounding them by virtue of that being their home, you create too much "collateral damage", and there's nothing quite like being punished for changing people's minds right back against you. so instead of continued internal pressure on hamas and HA you get the arab street protesting against israel, the great satan.
who wins here again?
Re: I guess I see
Date: 2006-07-26 07:14 am (UTC)Since the "occupation" they object to is the existence of the State of Israel itself, in what way does that occupation no longer exist?
...the REAL problem is Iran and Syria...
Hm. Are you familiar with the gaming phrase, "non-player characters"?
I will fully concede the Administration very much wants Iran and Syria to be the root causes here. It would be very convenient for them. Also, it would play nicely into the (mostly unproven) theory that one can only have a terrorist organization if one has state support from somewhere.
Trouble is... It doesn't work that way.
Let's play, "What if this were so?" That is, what if Iran and Syria really are the problem... Or enough so they can try to give orders to Hezbollah. I suspect the dialogue would go much like this:
I&S: Hey, guys, enough's enough. Lay off.
Hez: Fuck you.
I&S: No, really, we're serious. We're the guys who supply your weapons.
Hez: Fuck you. We'll just find another supplier, and if we can't... well, guerrilla ops are fun, y'know? Fuck you. And watch your back, 'cause now we're going to gun for you, too. Don't tell me the Lebanese-Syrian border ain't porous, Bashar. That plays both ways, y'know.
It's a five minute discussion, and all the typically wishful naive thinking of the Bush Adminstration won't make it any less so.
Terry's parallel with the IRA is instructive, too. The IRA kept chugging along years after Ireland yanked all support. Hamas kept the Intifada bubbling along long after Arafat, Fatah, and the more mainstream bits of the PLO wanted the whole thing shut down (which is why negotiating with Arafat was such a waste of time -- he had no genuine command authority). Trying to bully Iran and Syria to give "orders" that'll just be ignored anyway is stupid.
This is the fundamental problem with guerrilla ops: Once the players get a taste for blood, how do you turn them off?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 09:50 am (UTC)I think it's a sucker's bet that a year ago the Israeli response would have been less extreme. Ariel Sharon didn't have to prove himself to anybody. The whole world knew he was a badass and therefore he could be diplomatic by choice and nobody would dare call him a coward. Ehud Olmert is a different story. He's been hard right Likud for most of his life, and he has no reputation to stand on.
Reasonable response...
Date: 2006-07-26 05:21 pm (UTC)On first blush, this looks looks like the "proportionality" argument that's been circulating in the news lately.
Here's (http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2006/07/new-york-times-lebanon-and-jus-in.html) post by Jason Van Steenwyk which cites, among other things, the doctrine of proportionality under Jus in Bello (includes a link to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Jason states that "proportionality" is defined with respect to the military objective to be achieved.
Jason states this is part of basic military ethics:
Maybe he's all wet. If so, you can be the first to call him on it, and possibly direct him to an authorative source for the straight dope.
Consent?
Date: 2006-07-26 06:29 pm (UTC)Of course, a lot winds up being buried in the word "voluntary".
For example, the last sentence of the paragraph you quoted in Dershowitz' piece (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-dershowitz22jul22,0,7685210.story) reads:
If you were reading Dershowitz as saying that all who remained behind in southern Lebanon are complicit, this last sentence would seem inconsistent with that reading.
Indeed, my reading of Dershowitz is that he's exploring a continuum of guilt, wherein some offer support because they have no other choice, but others offer more support than they have been forced to. He compares this with an example from criminal law, particularly the Fall River rape case, in which:
To cast this as an argument that there is no such thing as an innocent civilian is, IMO, a seriously flawed reading of the article.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 08:25 pm (UTC)I think, a year ago, Israel might have done someting similar. I certainly think Olmert expected the US to tell him to stop (and when they didn't he tried to force them to by asking for expedited weapons) and they didn't. Which left him in the uneviable position of trying to sleep in the bed wherein he'd shat.
TK