It looks obvious

“Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” — Albert Einstein

A Question of perspective

Comments

An Interesting debate, between me and Jamie, developed around the question of proportionate response . The debate naturally developed to larger question, and as I wrote to Jamie her last response, and my reply, and my reply deserve to be brought from the comments section into a post of their own.

Jamie’s replied to this comments :

You raised valid concerns however you have to be more accurate. Firstly Lebanon is a sovereign country and therefore responsible for action of wars initiated from its territory. Lebanon refused to disarm the Hezbulla, from whatever reason, and is responsible for the results.

Second, Hezbulla continued to attack Israel and threaten its civilians life for the last 6 years – Lebanon and the UN did not do anything to stop this attacks and to enforce the UN resolution 1995.

My point was that it was for Hezbulla advantage to hold the Israeli north hostage for the last 6 years, keeping the fighting at the level comfortable for its goals. The demand from Israel not to use its own advantages to protect its citizens is immoral!
Could Israel handle this war differently? maybe. But it is easy to demand from the comfort and safety of being in England, or the USA.

And one last question- if it was your son that the Hezbulla took as hostage would you still think that his life isn’t more than power plant? I doubt that very much.

Jamie’s response was long and started with the claimed that Lebanon isn’t responsible for Hezbullah’s actions:

It isn’t that Lebanon ‘refused’ to disarm Hizbullah. It’s that the Lebanese Army couldn’t disarm Hizbullah, an organization that is extremely popular with the Shi’ite communities in the south (thanks to the Israeli occupation) and that filled the vacuum left by Syria. The IDF can’t destroy Hizbullah any more than the Lebanese Army can, because what really matters is how strong Hizbullah are politically – and the current Israeli offensive is only reviving their flagging claim to be the ‘true resistance movement’.

The fact is that Lebanon claim to be a sovereign country and as such it has responsibilities. One of this responsibilities is to prevent organizations’ like the Hezbullah, from engaging in war actions against neighboring countries. The hezbullah , isn’t an underground organization , its leaders are Lebanese parliament members. In addition the Lebanese government refused to obey UN 1995 resolution calling, among other thing, to disarm all private militias in Lebanon. Nonetheless the Lebanese never asked for international help in forcing the UN resolution but rejected it on its face. Hence the Lebanese government is responsible as the sovereign government of the land for the actions of the Hezbullah.

“The demand from Israel not to use its own advantages to protect its citizens is immoral!”

I disagree. Firstly, we should get one thing clear – there is a clear distinction, even in law, between attacking civilians and attacking combatants. Hizbullah committed a crime by taking hostage two IDF soldiers, but to use that as a justification for killing 330 civilians in just over a week, and bombing a country back 20 years is just obscene.

So no, Israel isn’t entitled to use all it’s ‘advantages’ (i.e. military might) to defend itself. There are restrictions; is basic morality doesn’t suffice, then there is international law, for example.

It seems to me obvious that the phrase “Israel advantages” was its military might and not targeting civilians – this is the terrorist advantages. The distinction has to be very clear, and Israel action need to be explained better in this respect.

In fact Israel’s operation doesn’t target civilians and isn’t aiming in killing civilians. It is a sad fact that the hezbullah built its rocket storage in civilian houses (paying them for the use by the way) and its launching these rockets from the middle of villages. It is also a sad fact that Hezbullah built its headquarters inside civilian neighborhoods. It is unfortunate that when the Israeli attack they cannot kill only Hezbullah fighters because of the conditions above – but they are trying. If you will check the situation in Beirut, for example ,  you will see that only the neighborhood with Hezbullah’s HQ got effected from the Israeli air-raids.

The Hezbullah, however, targets only civilians. None of the rockets (and the Hezbullah launch more than 2200 of them) was aimed at military installation but on peaceful towns and villages.  These attacks being launched from the middle of villages, civilian neighborhoods and the Lebanese government didn’t make any attempt to stop them.

The number of civilians killed in Lebanon is not clear, some claims that it is around 330. It might be the correct number but we have to remember that many of these civilians are actually Hezbullah fighters. The Hezbullah never disclosed its casualties, presenting them always as civilians. It doesn’t change the fact that civilians died in this war, it just put some perspective to the number reported.

Targeting civilians shouldn’t be the target of war, however in wars civilians get killed. It might be even shocking revelation for some to discover that wars in general are bad. I don’t think that Jamie thinks that the allies attack on Germany during WWII, killing many civilians, wasn’t justified. However Jamie, and many other, hold different standard for Israel. What are the reasons for it is a subject for different discussion.

But yes, kidnapping the two soldiers was an act of war – but it was not an initiator of war. It was just the latest incident, and not by any means an unprecedented one, in an ongoing low-intensity conflict that has been happening for years, and that has seen frequent border skirmishes and Israeli assasination attempts and so on.

This was my point Jamie – and you keep choosing to avoid it. It was for the Hezbullah advantage to keep the Israeli citizens hostages for the last 6 years, launching limited attacks with very little risk for itself. The hezbullah kept gaining political power in Lebanon partially because of the ineffectiveness of the proportionate doctrine.

It is only low-intensity when it’s some Israeli kid that is being killed, or sleeping in a shelter. It is only skirmish when its Israeli patrol, inside Israel, that is being ambushed. It is easy to take such academic approach when you are in England or in the USA.

It is moral to stop the aggression decisively and fast. Proportionate response is only another name for giving up on any ability to control the conflict, handing such decision for the Hezbullah to decide when and where it will escalate the fighting. This is not only not wise, it is wrong morally to demand from Israel.

Do you think that USA should have only bombs two towers in Afghanistan in the name of the holly proportions?  God I hope not.

Firstly, it’s not ‘power plant vs. soldier’. It’s a question of whether the kidnapping of a soldier justifies intentionally causing suffering to hundreds of thousands of people, and intentionally violating international law.

But if it was my son – I have no idea how I would react. But if I reacted by supporting causing pain to the population of Gaza, it would be purely out of anger and hurt, and not by reason or compassion, and so I would be wrong.

I don’t know about you Jamie, but I want to believe that if someone will take my daughters hostages I’ll go down to Hades to bring them back. Their life and well being worth for me much more than a power plant. I only wish the Hezbullah felt the same, It probably prevent much of the violent occasions we are facing.

Written by Rogel

July 23rd, 2006 at 11:10 am

Posted in War on Terror

« I can hardly wait
X-Hawk »

Viewing 4 Comments

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus