I’d like to respond to a comment made by Zev on the last post; I started replying but then realized it was getting fairly long pretty quickly, and might be better as a separate entry. Zev said:
One quick question. As you really do propone peace, which would entail a cessation of violence on behalf of both parties, why does the destruction caused by Israeli forces strike you as more poignant? Is it merely quantitative? There are plenty of bloggers out there, for instance, who harp on the fact that while Israel uses guided missiles, Hezbollah uses unguided rockets filled with shrapnel. That is only to say, then, that different people seem to be struck by distinct sorts of details.
Here are the reasons that immediately come to mind:
First, yes, there is something about the sheer numbers that bothers me. Because the justification of Israel’s actions came out of a particular incident in which several soldiers were killed, their response seems highly disproportionate to the initial instigation. 1,000 civilian deaths does not seem like proper recompense for 10 military deaths. (Though I have a question here, which you may be able to respond to: is the military/civilian distinction not as clear in Israel, where some sort of military service is mandatory? Does attacking a soldier have some of the same emotional weight as attacking a regular civilian?)
Second, I think there’s something about Israel’s status and strength that plays into it. States receive many privileges and powers that other political entities who are not officially recognized do not. For instance, they can commit violent acts without automatically being dubbed ‘terrorist’; the notion of state terrorism has yet to gain a lot of currency (though I think it may accurately describe the actions of many states). States are given the ability to negotiate internationally and to make legitimate demands on other states. For this reason, it seems to me that they also have greater responsibilities, and should adhere to a higher standard of behavior. This includes not targeting civilians, not taking advantage of weaker states, and not using their own force inappropriately. (I disagree with many of our own country’s actions abroad because I feel they violate some of these basic principles.) I feel that Israel is not holding itself to the higher standard of conduct that should be expected from it. Fundamentalists, extremists, and terrorists don’t make distinctions between individuals in a given country or people group and the political ideology held by some in that same group; thus they target civilians as a means of punishing the whole. Recognized nations should be expected to make that distinction, and to abide by it, even if fighting against a legitimate enemy becomes difficult because civilians are in the way. I feel as though Israel is refusing to see the difference between Hezbollah and Lebanon, which I feel is a crucial distinction. Hezbollah does not make such distinctions either, in their comments and their actions against Israel; all Israelis become agents of the state, fair game for attack. And we condemn them for this, and say they are worth eradicating for it. Those who would fight terrorists must be wary lest they be transformed into the likeness of their enemy.
Third, there seems to be some basis to suggest that Israel truly is intentionally attacking non-military targets, with the express desire of harming those who have nothing to do with Hezbollah. That is, they seem to be making war against Lebanon because they want to, not because there is a greater cause. I think this is why the listings of the destroyed buildings in Lebanon seemed so powerful. Yes, Hezbollah may be using some public buildings from which to operate, but does that in any way legitimate destroying farms, and the homes of so many families? These numbers seem to say there is more behind Israel’s ‘defense’ than may be explicitly stated. Israel’s bombing of a U.N. observer post brings up the same doubt, as do news stories such as this:
Around the corner is the Lebanese Red Cross. Lots of ambulances outside, immobile. Then the sound of an engine, and one moves.
“Don’t worry, I’m just parking!” shouts the driver. He is Kassem Shaalan. He knows what it is like to be hit by a rocket.
On the evening of 23 July, he and two other medics answered a call to rendezvous with an ambulance from Tibnin, in the hills to the east, to relay three civilian patients down to Tyre.
Both ambulances were struck precisely by separate rockets as they were stopped at the roadside near Qana for the transfer.
It was 2230 at night. There was nothing else on the road. They were clearly marked, and lit up with flashing blue lights and illuminated Red Cross flags.
But they all survived. And Kassem is back at work.
“Until now, we don’t understand why they did it,” he says now. “It has confused us. But it will not stop us. I’m still wearing the Red Cross uniform, and if they tell me to go, I’ll go and help.
“Because of the Israeli warning, every movement we do goes through the International Red Cross,” he says.
They ask Israel for permission. If we have it, we go. If we don’t, we can’t. We get many calls from villages saying they have injured people, but there is no permission to go. Yes, people could be dying because we can’t get to them in time. If you don’t get treated within one hour, you are much more likely to die.”
I want to clarify that I don’t mean to completely ignore the violence caused by Hezbollah, or to say that it is not something for Israel or others to worry about. Subduing Hezbollah may be a worthy goal. But I also object to arguments that say ends justify means. The means themselves must be analysed, must be justified. And what I have seen thus far leads me to believe that the means Israel is using are not justified. And because they are the larger nation, the greater strength in the conflict, and because they have caused more destruction during this immediate conflict, their actions over all, strike me, as you put it, more poignantly. This sense of grief and disturbance over Israel’s actions becomes even greater, I think, knowing that the U.S. is also implicated in it. Our insistence on staunchly supporting Israel, even when their doings are questionable, leads us to also share the blame for this unjustified violence.
And their doings are, at the least, questionable. The most recent headline I’ve seen today announced that the U.N. Human Rights Council will be investigating abuses committed by Israel in the month-long campaign against Lebanon. However, I do agree with those who criticize the possibility of an investigation into abuses by Israel that does not also address similar abuses by Hezbollah. Whether or not they are done at the same time, both should occur.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/364llkga.asp
I’m deleting the majority of the comment left by moooonriver above, which was more or less an entire article copied and pasted as a comment. I’ve left the link so that others can read the article if they want to.
I’d like to request that comments be something with actual writing from the commentator. Please feel free to include some quotes and links to articles, but comments of any real length should include some of your own content.
Thanks,
meg
I found this bit from the U.S. State Dept. briefing on 8/8/06 insightful. I hope to have a more extended response in the not-too-distant future.
QUESTION: Yes. But you [the US] are doing — you know, I hope that you don’t, you know, continue to be misunderstood by many people in the Middle East when you say that the reason for their becoming refugees is Hezbollah as if you are endorsing the violation, the Israeli violation of Geneva Conventions that Israel should not use its might against a civilian population, destroying their villages and houses and lives.
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, okay. I mean, we can get into a long conversation about Israeli military operations, but just one general comment about that. We have from the very beginning talked to the Israeli Government about the fact that it needs to take the utmost care in defending itself against Hezbollah. But let’s point out here, let’s remember exactly what the tactics of a group like Hezbollah are. This is a group that will hide itself among civilian populations, launch rockets at other civilians across a border, hoping to kill them, and hide themselves among families, at schools, hospitals, almost daring other forces to try to get them. I mean, this is the sort of — these are the sort of cowardly tactics that this group — that these groups employ.
And that while for the Israeli Government, a responsible democracy, member of the United Nations, there are mechanisms to look at their actions to see if they did in fact fall outside the Israelis’ rules of engagement, whether or not they complied with international treaties. Those aren’t judgments that we make. In large part, those are judgments that democracies themselves make. They look at those things. The Israeli Government has launched investigations into its actions. There is no such accountability mechanism for a group like Hezbollah that operates outside the boundaries of laws and treaties and norms of civilized behavior.
So let’s just remember, let’s remember that. We’re dealing on one hand here with a responsible democracy, a free people governed by rules and laws, and on one hand; and on the other hand, a terrorist organization that operates outside the bounds of laws and norms of international behavior.
Are you endorsing the statements in that article Zev?
While it is true that there is no accountability mechanism for stateless military groups like Hezbollah, that does not justify, in itself, actions against them.
Let me make a brief comparison. ‘Terrorist’ organizations tend to attack not military targets, but civilian targets, and to do so without discrimination. Their logic is clear : hurt the people so that the people stop supporting their government’s actions.
Israel is engaging in a similar cruel logic : they are attacking Lebanese civilian infrastructure, and causing widespread evacuations of refugees. By attacking the infrastructure, they are attacking civilians with discrimination, but it is a discrimination that will cause vast amount of harm long after the conflict is ended. I think that is one of the shocking aspects of the tally Meg reproduced above. For another long-term problem caused by Israel’s attacks, see ‘Damage is done’ to Lebanon’s coastThey too are punishing the Lebanese for their support of Hezbollah.
It seems that the main two differences are that, first, whereas Israel has signed international treaties barring it from indiscriminate killing as a nation-state, Hezbollah does not have that same illegitimacy, and second, while Hezbollah has targeted to hurt and kill civilians in the present, Israel has done both worse to Lebanon’s civilians now, and for the next several years, as they attempt to rebuild (assuming the conflict ends soon).
As an entity that is not a state, it is clearly outside the normal accountability mechanisms used. But that does not release agents dealing with them from their own obligations.
Meg is a strong believer in bringing peace by being peaceful. While Hezbollah’s actions are not by any means acceptable, I think there is in some sense a much greater lapse on Israel’s part of dealing with them, in return, in such a poor way.
I would say that while hiding behind civilians is an awful thing to do, for Israel to go ahead and attack anyways, with the knowledge that civilians are in danger, is probably worse.