Aha, so Mr. Peretz was just joshing us in the beginning when he declared emphatically that the war was not against Lebanon.
Of course I find it incredible that the Lebanese government seems to believe it had no obligation to disarm Hezbollah (as did apparently the UN force in Lebanon). Nonetheless, I strongly dislike the analogy, as I dislike all analogies that compare collective entities to individual people. Argue that every civilian—every child who died—is necessary collateral, if you like, since I suppose that's an empirical question that people can disagree upon. Don't imply that they share some sort of collective responsibility, as Alan Dershowitz has apparently attempted to do in a mild form; that logic smacks of Ward Churchillism.
For what it's worth, I mostly agree with Michael Walzer, with a few caveats.
The liberal obsession with "collective punishment" (which bothers nobody when calling for disinvestment from and boycotts against Israel) seems to me so much nonsense. All national actions are collective, certainly including war. Israel abandoned Gaza and south Lebanon to the Arabs, for which peace-making they were rewarded with the "collective punishment" of thousands of missile strikes over months. War was already being waged, by one side alone, when even Ehud Olmert, whose whole policy had been to give up land for peace, decided that enough was enough. Israel accepted war; and war is always collective. If the Lebanese did not want war with Israel, they had six years to disarm Hezbollah. If the Gazans did not want war with Israel, they could simply have avoided voting in a party whose platform is the destruction of the Jewish state. Everything else is masturbation. Anyone who, in time of war, is obsessed with his or her own personal self-righteousness, has lost sight of reality.
Bothers nobody? Several (most?) prominent liberals I've read came out strongly against the academic boycott of Israel, including the sometimes shrill and definitely rather leftish Juan Cole; the same with the calls for the disinvestment from Israel. (At least in the U.S., views on the conflict don't line up well with the stereotypical liberal/conservative divide.) I know it's popular among certain commentators to feign an inability to see the difference between Michael Walzer and Joseph Stalin, and I'm confident you are not one of them.
Thanks for the background on the conflict, though as it happens, I was familiar with it. Nobody is disputing that Hezbollah was the agressor in the conflict, and I have simply no sympathy for them at all. I visited Haifa and several other towns being attacked the last time I was in Israel, and I have two friends there. Hezbollah, unlike Israel, is targetting civilian populations, and that deserves the disgust of everyone. And Israel is certainly entitled to some form of military response; nobody could argue otherwise when over 800 missiles have been launched at northern Israel.
Nevertheless, the fact that some sort of response is warranted does not mean any sort of response is warranted. It doesn't follow from the fact that Hezbollah has done no good that Israel can't do wrong, nor does it mean Israel's actions are uniformly wise. The fact that Hezbollah cowardishly operates from within civilian areas means that a certain number of civilian casualties are unavoidable (and Hezbollah's fault); it doesn't mean that any number of civilian casualties are acceptable. Not leaving the area does not make targetting civilians okay, any more than it did when the IRA made the same argument.
Granted that Israel's goal is to defeat Hezbollah, and that their actions so far are actually condusive to that end, I think Israel's actions so far have been proportionate. That said, when livelihoods and lives are being destroyed, dismissing important questions with offhand remarks or simplistic analogies is really inappropriate.
(Surely the Catholic Church also strongly opposes collective punishment? I remember Elizabeth Anscombe pointedly protested against Truman being awarded an honorary degree for his role in the use of the atom bomb.)
The last I heard was that civilian casualties in Lebanon were about 400. Apart that this certainly disguises hundreds of Hezbollah fighters - it is becoming clear that Hezbollah is taking heavy casualties - it means that, for all the thousands upon thousands of heavy bombs dropped by Israel, they killed, in two weeks, two persons for every one killed in one minute in Mumbai or Madrid, and and one person for every nine killed in New York City five years ago. What on Earth are you asking for? Besides, it really is important that the Arabs civilians, whose decades-long hysteria has fuelled war after war, should feel on their own skin what war really means. If I were an Israeli leader, I would be a lot less careful than they are.
Oh, and Elizabeth Anscombe does not speak for the Catholic Church. Nobody does, but if you want to find someone who is more authoritative than the next guy, try Thomas Aquinas.
I wanted to leave a note thanking you for posting the link to my post 'a difficult lesson'. But while I'm already here I hope you won't mind if I chime in with a few observations on your very erudite discussion... from an Israeli point of view:
First of all, I have to commend Fabio for his well-reasoned synopsis of recent history. While some may not have found it necessary or instructive, it is unhelpful to conduct this kind of discussion without it (as is done every day in the media). Context really is everything.
I must admit to having some trouble getting my head around the position(s) held by the commenter called 'Goreism'. While I can't help but agree that analogies rarely hold up when transferred from individual to group actions/motivations, I can assure you that the central point in my analogy is a bulls-eye.
The reason there has been no peace in the middle east is that no Arab military force (regular or irregular) has ever been allowed to suffer a complete defeat. By 'defeat' I mean the sort where the victor dictates the terms of surrender to the vanquished and there is no room for negotiation. It is humiliating but necessary process.
Another point worth respectfully extending to Goreism is that the liberal voices you quote who have spoken out against collectively punishing Israel are such a tiny minority as to be statistically insignificant. Yes they have spoken, but who has really heard them?
The last point I would make is that in war it is actually cruel to all sides to suggest a 'measured response'. If nobody can achieve a decisive victory the carnage will go on without end, and the loss of Innocent life will be exponentially larger.
In this case Hezbollah has spent every moment since Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon deliberately entrenching its infrastructure in and around civilian population centers, schools and hospitals. Leaving those rocket launchers and command bunkers intact is not an option if civilians in northern Israel is ever to come out of the bomb shelters... so brace yourself for more 'collateral damage. This is tragic but Israel has to choose between protecting its own citizens or Lebanon's. There is no middle ground available to the decision makers here. Hezbollah made sure of that, banking on Israel's western morals to keep those targets safe. They are about to lose that bet.
Thank you again for posting the link... and for a very civil, intelligent discussion of a terribly complex issue. Well done all around.
goreism often surprises me. I am not even sure that he is one single person, and I suspect that "he" may amount to a collective identity. He/they is/are of a scholarly and philosophical bent, and belong to an Eastern Orthodox church. He/They show familiarity with various parts of the world, including Bangalore (India), Taiwan, and the US. He/They is/are among the most intelligent, civilized and interesting regular posters to this LJ, and when I happen to disagree with him/them, I am therefore motivated to do so with less anger and fire than I would use for less intelligent opponents. Which is why this discussion has not (so far) degenerated. Besides, if you look carefully, you will find that he/they do not really go to any great length opposing Israel's current actions. It is more a matter, it seems, of what might happen or be seen to happen. If anything, it was I who tended to exaggerate.
I calls'em as I sees'em. And I think there are a few - or a few dozen - people on and off line who can testify that I can be quite scathing when I see reason to.
Hi! Thanks for your comments. I'm at work and I'm a little busy, so I'll have to try and keep this short.
Suffice it to say that I think there are a lot more reasons for the lack of peace in the Middle East than the fact that no Arab entity has ever suffered total defeat. (Incidentally, is the Arab entity in question here Hezbollah or Lebanon?) The reason I referred to collective punishment is that, pace the analogy, the set of people being humiliated (and having their livelihoods destroyed, and being killed) isn't conterminous with the set of people who apparently need to be humiliated, etc. Analogies often subtly mask the more difficult questions, and I think this one did so too to a certain extent.
It certainly didn't seem like a statistically insignificant minority to me; in fact, as I recall the backlash against the AUT boycott was so widespread from all quarters that they quickly reversed their decision. Even Noam Chomsky, of all people, opposed it--obviously I don't know how to prove this either way, but from my vantage point it seemed like most of the mainstream left also opposed it.
fpb is right that I didn't strongly come out for or against Israel's actions, and that's because for all the talk of striking a "decisive blow" at Hezbollah, I'm undecided as to whether Israel's actions are actually condusive to that end. Matt Yglesias at the American Prospect and Hilary Bok at Obsidian Wings don't think so. My natural pessimism leads me to suspect it's a bit more difficult than many commentators on the editorial pages and television screens of this country are implying.
Wow, I am still a little off balance at the high level of discourse here and the intelligent, civil manner in which ideas are shared. This is a refreshing change from what is going on elsewhere in the blogosphere.
I too am responding from work so I will attempt a concise answer:
You are completely correct in saying that there are more reasons for the lack of peace in the middle east than just the over-simplified answer I gave about defeat vs. cease fire. However, the ability to repeatedly attack without fear of lasting consequences is one of the things that has allowed hostilities against Israel to occur so frequently. In a setting where attacking means risking devastating defeat and the complete loss of power, leaders are likely to be more circumspect about carrying our acts of terrorism/war.
In terms of who is being attacked right now, I would still say it is Hezbollah. Yes, Lebanon is suffering greatly, but they are not the blameless bystanders that the world wants to make them out to be. The government of Lebanon had very clear responsibilities under UN Resolution 1559 to exert full control over all of its land and eliminate any militias. It's not that they did a bad job of this... they never even made the attempt. The UN forces who were supposed to monitor and assist in this endeavor also sat quietly by and watched as Hezbollah spent the entire 6 years since Israel withdrew creating an incredible infrastructure of trenches, bunkers, control center, ammo dumps and rocket launching sites in and around Lebanese towns and villages. The Lebanese government and UN forces also sat silently by while more than 13,000 rockets were imported and deliberately placed in civilians areas. All of this preparation was aimed directly at launching attacks upon Israel (and responding to the inevitable Israeli reaction to such attacks)... yet for 6 years nobody lifted a finger to avert the inevitable tragedy waiting to happen. Now that Hezbollah has actually gone and attacked Israel and continued firing rockets from within civilian areas Lebanon, the UN sounds a bit disingenuous for complaining that Israel is killing civilians along with the bad guys. So of course you are correct, the Lebanese are not the target and are not the ones who need to be humiliated and defeated. But they also helped create the mortal danger in which they find themselves.
As to the issue of the left speaking out against collective punishment of Israel... the British academic boycott is a lone example of efforts to collectively punish Israel having failed. Boycotting Israeli products, refusing to speak out/protest against deliberate attacks against Israeli civilians and the continued use of the UN as an anti-Israel resolution factory are all examples (albeit subtle ones) by which Israel continues to be collectively punished.
I will admit that when fighting a non-governmental terrorist force I don't know exactly what might constitute a "decisive blow". But I do know that not responding with force has never worked. While Israel has never know a true peace, the limited lack of hostilities that have lasted the longest have been in the wake of hugely disproportionate military responses. Jordan - perhaps Israel's closes 'friend' in the region - had allowed the PLO to operate in its midst in the late 60s much the way Hezbollah now operates with impunity within Lebanon. It was only Israel's massive, disproportionate responses against PLO attacks from Jordanian soil that caused Jordan's king Hussein to finally massively crack down on the PLOs 'state within a state'. He slaughtered more than 2000 Palestinians and exiled the rest of the PLO to Lebanon in what came to be known as Black September. Lebanon was forced to expel the PLO a couple of decades later after Israel again provided a massive, disproportionate response. It is sad to say, but it appears that they (the Lebanese government) quickly forget the lessons of that period. What is going on now is Israel doing what Lebanon couldn't/wouldn't.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 10:26 pm (UTC)Thanks for posting.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 12:14 am (UTC)Of course I find it incredible that the Lebanese government seems to believe it had no obligation to disarm Hezbollah (as did apparently the UN force in Lebanon). Nonetheless, I strongly dislike the analogy, as I dislike all analogies that compare collective entities to individual people. Argue that every civilian—every child who died—is necessary collateral, if you like, since I suppose that's an empirical question that people can disagree upon. Don't imply that they share some sort of collective responsibility, as Alan Dershowitz has apparently attempted to do in a mild form; that logic smacks of Ward Churchillism.
For what it's worth, I mostly agree with Michael Walzer, with a few caveats.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 04:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 05:17 am (UTC)Thanks for the background on the conflict, though as it happens, I was familiar with it. Nobody is disputing that Hezbollah was the agressor in the conflict, and I have simply no sympathy for them at all. I visited Haifa and several other towns being attacked the last time I was in Israel, and I have two friends there. Hezbollah, unlike Israel, is targetting civilian populations, and that deserves the disgust of everyone. And Israel is certainly entitled to some form of military response; nobody could argue otherwise when over 800 missiles have been launched at northern Israel.
Nevertheless, the fact that some sort of response is warranted does not mean any sort of response is warranted. It doesn't follow from the fact that Hezbollah has done no good that Israel can't do wrong, nor does it mean Israel's actions are uniformly wise. The fact that Hezbollah cowardishly operates from within civilian areas means that a certain number of civilian casualties are unavoidable (and Hezbollah's fault); it doesn't mean that any number of civilian casualties are acceptable. Not leaving the area does not make targetting civilians okay, any more than it did when the IRA made the same argument.
Granted that Israel's goal is to defeat Hezbollah, and that their actions so far are actually condusive to that end, I think Israel's actions so far have been proportionate. That said, when livelihoods and lives are being destroyed, dismissing important questions with offhand remarks or simplistic analogies is really inappropriate.
(Surely the Catholic Church also strongly opposes collective punishment? I remember Elizabeth Anscombe pointedly protested against Truman being awarded an honorary degree for his role in the use of the atom bomb.)
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 05:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 05:32 am (UTC)Thank you for posting the link
Date: 2006-07-26 02:26 pm (UTC)First of all, I have to commend Fabio for his well-reasoned synopsis of recent history. While some may not have found it necessary or instructive, it is unhelpful to conduct this kind of discussion without it (as is done every day in the media). Context really is everything.
I must admit to having some trouble getting my head around the position(s) held by the commenter called 'Goreism'. While I can't help but agree that analogies rarely hold up when transferred from individual to group actions/motivations, I can assure you that the central point in my analogy is a bulls-eye.
The reason there has been no peace in the middle east is that no Arab military force (regular or irregular) has ever been allowed to suffer a complete defeat. By 'defeat' I mean the sort where the victor dictates the terms of surrender to the vanquished and there is no room for negotiation. It is humiliating but necessary process.
Another point worth respectfully extending to Goreism is that the liberal voices you quote who have spoken out against collectively punishing Israel are such a tiny minority as to be statistically insignificant. Yes they have spoken, but who has really heard them?
The last point I would make is that in war it is actually cruel to all sides to suggest a 'measured response'. If nobody can achieve a decisive victory the carnage will go on without end, and the loss of Innocent life will be exponentially larger.
In this case Hezbollah has spent every moment since Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon deliberately entrenching its infrastructure in and around civilian population centers, schools and hospitals. Leaving those rocket launchers and command bunkers intact is not an option if civilians in northern Israel is ever to come out of the bomb shelters... so brace yourself for more 'collateral damage. This is tragic but Israel has to choose between protecting its own citizens or Lebanon's. There is no middle ground available to the decision makers here. Hezbollah made sure of that, banking on Israel's western morals to keep those targets safe. They are about to lose that bet.
Thank you again for posting the link... and for a very civil, intelligent discussion of a terribly complex issue. Well done all around.
Re: Thank you for posting the link
Date: 2006-07-26 02:28 pm (UTC)My name is David Bogner and I am the site owner of www.treppenwitz.com. I live in Efrat Israel.
Re: Thank you for posting the link
Date: 2006-07-26 03:51 pm (UTC)As an Israeli Jew, you might be interested in this post of mine: http://community.livejournal.com/fpb_de_fide/1203.html.
Re: Thank you for posting the link
Date: 2006-07-26 08:50 pm (UTC)(BTW, there's more than one person who shares this LJ, but I think only one of us -- me -- has ever commented on your LJ.)
Re: Thank you for posting the link
Date: 2006-07-26 09:20 pm (UTC)Re: Thank you for posting the link
Date: 2006-07-27 06:39 am (UTC)Re: Thank you for posting the link
Date: 2006-07-26 08:51 pm (UTC)Suffice it to say that I think there are a lot more reasons for the lack of peace in the Middle East than the fact that no Arab entity has ever suffered total defeat. (Incidentally, is the Arab entity in question here Hezbollah or Lebanon?) The reason I referred to collective punishment is that, pace the analogy, the set of people being humiliated (and having their livelihoods destroyed, and being killed) isn't conterminous with the set of people who apparently need to be humiliated, etc. Analogies often subtly mask the more difficult questions, and I think this one did so too to a certain extent.
It certainly didn't seem like a statistically insignificant minority to me; in fact, as I recall the backlash against the AUT boycott was so widespread from all quarters that they quickly reversed their decision. Even Noam Chomsky, of all people, opposed it--obviously I don't know how to prove this either way, but from my vantage point it seemed like most of the mainstream left also opposed it.
So much for brevity, eh?
Re: Thank you for posting the link
Date: 2006-07-27 06:28 am (UTC)I too am responding from work so I will attempt a concise answer:
You are completely correct in saying that there are more reasons for the lack of peace in the middle east than just the over-simplified answer I gave about defeat vs. cease fire. However, the ability to repeatedly attack without fear of lasting consequences is one of the things that has allowed hostilities against Israel to occur so frequently. In a setting where attacking means risking devastating defeat and the complete loss of power, leaders are likely to be more circumspect about carrying our acts of terrorism/war.
In terms of who is being attacked right now, I would still say it is Hezbollah. Yes, Lebanon is suffering greatly, but they are not the blameless bystanders that the world wants to make them out to be. The government of Lebanon had very clear responsibilities under UN Resolution 1559 to exert full control over all of its land and eliminate any militias. It's not that they did a bad job of this... they never even made the attempt. The UN forces who were supposed to monitor and assist in this endeavor also sat quietly by and watched as Hezbollah spent the entire 6 years since Israel withdrew creating an incredible infrastructure of trenches, bunkers, control center, ammo dumps and rocket launching sites in and around Lebanese towns and villages. The Lebanese government and UN forces also sat silently by while more than 13,000 rockets were imported and deliberately placed in civilians areas. All of this preparation was aimed directly at launching attacks upon Israel (and responding to the inevitable Israeli reaction to such attacks)... yet for 6 years nobody lifted a finger to avert the inevitable tragedy waiting to happen. Now that Hezbollah has actually gone and attacked Israel and continued firing rockets from within civilian areas Lebanon, the UN sounds a bit disingenuous for complaining that Israel is killing civilians along with the bad guys. So of course you are correct, the Lebanese are not the target and are not the ones who need to be humiliated and defeated. But they also helped create the mortal danger in which they find themselves.
As to the issue of the left speaking out against collective punishment of Israel... the British academic boycott is a lone example of efforts to collectively punish Israel having failed. Boycotting Israeli products, refusing to speak out/protest against deliberate attacks against Israeli civilians and the continued use of the UN as an anti-Israel resolution factory are all examples (albeit subtle ones) by which Israel continues to be collectively punished.
I will admit that when fighting a non-governmental terrorist force I don't know exactly what might constitute a "decisive blow". But I do know that not responding with force has never worked. While Israel has never know a true peace, the limited lack of hostilities that have lasted the longest have been in the wake of hugely disproportionate military responses. Jordan - perhaps Israel's closes 'friend' in the region - had allowed the PLO to operate in its midst in the late 60s much the way Hezbollah now operates with impunity within Lebanon. It was only Israel's massive, disproportionate responses against PLO attacks from Jordanian soil that caused Jordan's king Hussein to finally massively crack down on the PLOs 'state within a state'. He slaughtered more than 2000 Palestinians and exiled the rest of the PLO to Lebanon in what came to be known as Black September. Lebanon was forced to expel the PLO a couple of decades later after Israel again provided a massive, disproportionate response. It is sad to say, but it appears that they (the Lebanese government) quickly forget the lessons of that period. What is going on now is Israel doing what Lebanon couldn't/wouldn't.