Lebanon: A Jewish Moderate's Lament
Lebanon: A Jewish Moderate’s Lament
These are difficult times for those of us who fall into neither of the two distinct camps that have dominated the debate over the Israeli-Hezbollah war on talk radio and segments of the blogosphere.
The first camp supports the Israeli incursion to the hilt. It supports not only the Israeli incursion into Lebanon but any and all Israeli attacks on Arabs. These are the people who opposed the Oslo process, believe that Israel’s peace with Egypt is next to worthless, and railed against the Gaza withdrawal. This camp, far larger in the United States than in Israel, welcomes events which seem to demonstrate that Israel needs to live behind an iron wall and that peace with Arabs is a fantasy.
The second camp consists of those who view Israel as the source of all the problems in the Middle East. The Jews’ original sin was, of course, establishing a state in the first place. Ever since, Israel has recklessly used violence to advance the goal of a Greater Israel. Even when Israel pulls out of territory, it does so for nefarious reasons. As for Lebanon, Israel’s actions are war crimes and are, needless to say, utterly unjustified.
Neither of these camps represents a majority of the population (i.e, the population that thinks about these matters at all). Polls of both the American public in general and of the American Jewish community in particular show strong majorities supporting both Israel’s right to security and the Palestinians’ right to a West Bank/Gaza state.
But silent majorities tend to be, well, silent. Extremists dominate the debate because they devote more energy to it than amorphous majorities.
That has certainly happened with the Lebanon debate.
The extremists are heard because more thoughtful commentators have tended to abandon the fight. That is no surprise. Few enjoy being called either an anti-Semite or an Arab basher which invariably happens when one discusses this issue. Not to say that there aren’t plenty of anti-Semites and Arab bashers out there – and there is no reason not to label them as such – but name-calling cannot be allowed to stifle the debate.
As Americans, it is our obligation to address a crisis which has the potential to affect us all. In the post 9/11 world, anyone who believes we can ignore events in the Middle East is fooling themselves. The hatred produced by this war can blow up in our faces even here. Additionally, with 130,000 servicemen and women in Iraq, Shiite extremism is an American problem. Face it, Americans can die because of what is happening in Lebanon.
We cannot hide our heads in the sand.
Frankly, I do not see what choice Israel had following the Hezbollah kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and its shelling of Israeli cities other than to hit back hard. Hezbollah has no legitimate grievances against Israel. Israel holds no Lebanese territory.
It does hold a prisoner, Samir Kuntar, whose release Hezbollah demands. In 1979, Kuntar broke into an Israeli home in the town of Nahariyah, shot and killed a 28 year old father at close range in front of his daughter and then killed the four-year-old girl by smashing her against a rock, crushing her skull. Another daughter, a two-year-old, died when she was smothered by her mother who, hiding in a closet, covered her mouth to keep her from crying out and revealing their hiding place.
This is the Hezbollah hero whose freedom was a pretext for the attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah’s sole goal is the destruction of the State of Israel and the eradication of its people. And Hezbollah does not deny it.
My concern about the Israeli incursion, and it’s a significant one, is the number of innocent Lebanese who have been killed or driven from their homes. I know that the IDF did not target these civilians but that is small comfort to those who have lost everything. Every day that passes without a ceasefire means more suffering, more dead, more homeless.
At the same time, I do not believe Israel can be expected to stop fighting until the Hezbollah threat is, at the very least, controlled. What is it supposed to do? Cease fire and then wait until the terrorists decide to shell Haifa again? What country would permit that?
Secretary of State Rice was right when she said that a simple cease-fire in place that would only be an intermission in the killing is unacceptable. The Hezbollah threat must be removed which is why the United States needs to work for a serious cease-fire, one that will put Hezbollah back into its box, now.
One would think that any fair-minded person would understand that. But here’s the problem. People seem to be confusing Hezbollah with the Palestinians, or at least pretending to.
The rightwing American Jewish crowd does that because it wants to convey the idea that the Palestinians are, like Hezbollah, terrorists whose goal is simply to kill Jews. Just as Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Hezbollah, it can’t negotiate with the Palestinians either.
The anti-Israel crowd takes a mirror image approach. The Palestinians are a legitimate resistance movement that is fighting to end an occupation. So too then is Hezbollah, a liberation movement fighting for its land.
Both arguments are wrong.
Hezbollah is not a resistance movement. It does not seek to build a state in land that was once theirs but which Israel now occupies. While the overwhelming majority of Palestinians accept Israel’s right to exist, so long as they achieve their own state alongside Israel, Hezbollah rejects Israel’s existence period.
The only real connection between the Palestinian issue and Hezbollah is that the Hezbollah situation makes it all the more critical that Israel cut a deal with the Palestinians.
Contrary to the mantra of the Jewish right, the Hezbollah situation does not weaken the case for negotiations with Palestinians, it strengthens it.
Israel's reluctance to fully engage Mahmoud Abbas in negotiations led almost directly to the electoral victory of Hamas and the strengthening of Hezbollah. (Ariel Sharon actually released Palestinian prisoners to Hezbollah rather than to Abbas, an act that strengthened Hezbollah as much as it weakened the Palestinian President).
Failing to engage Abbas now and to help him form a working coalition from across the Palestinian spectrum could lead, almost surely will lead, to Hezbollah-like terrorists taking over the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas is bad enough; but there are worse out there simply because there are relative moderates within Hamas (the people who favor long-term cease-fires) while Hezbollah's policy toward Israel is eradication, pure and simple.
One Senate aide put it to me like this. “If I were Israeli, I’d cut a deal with the Palestinians now. I’d tell them that in return for the release of Shalit and an end of the Kassam attacks, Israel will stop attacking Gaza and start serious talks with Abbas about a long-term end of hostilities. That would cut the legs out from under Hezbollah. It would allow Israel to devote all its energy to eliminating the threat from the north. The last thing Israel needs is for Palestinian Sunnis and Lebanese Shiites to form a common front. It should split them before it happens and cut a deal now. The Egyptians are working to produce a Palestinian popular front that would deal with Israel. Israel needs to be encouraging that.”
That makes sense. The world sympathizes with Israel’s determination to eradicate Hezbollah. Even the Arab League has tempered its criticism of Israel.
Why not exploit the moment? What harm would it do?
No harm, except to destroy the arguments of the extremists on both sides who insist that Hezbollah and the Palestinians are identical which means, in the case of Jewish hawks, that they both should be destroyed and, in the case of Hezbollah apologists, that Israel should simply sit back and allow the country to be supplanted by a Muslim Arab state.
There is another way. Support Israel in its war with Hezbollah while striving for a workable cease-fire, and support the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians who understand that the establishment of a West Bank-Gaza Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel is the sine qua non for any kind of Middle East stability.
Yesterday, in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) tried valiantly to get United Nations ambassador John Bolton to admit that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the best and perhaps only way to end the Mideast horrors. Bolton would have none of it. For him, the problem is “terrorism” and he rejected with vehemence Chafee’s point that terrorism is a tactic not a “root cause.”
But Chafee is right. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will go a long way to ending the horrors that plague the Middle East. Eliminate Palestinian homelessness as a pretext for terrorism and you will eliminate much (not all) of the terrorist threat as well.
As to Lebanon, understand one thing. Hezbollah and other Middle East religious fanatics are the enemies of all liberals, of all modern people for that matter. Israel is not just fighting people who shell their cities. It is fighting a malignant ideology that reduces women to servitude, encourages the “honor killings” of rape victims, tortures and kills homosexuals, and would, if left unchecked, return the Middle East (and parts of Europe too) back to the dark ages.
That is why I hope Israel wins its war with Hezbollah. It is also why I hope Israel will come to its senses and negotiate an agreement with the Palestinians (two states for two peoples) that will empower Muslim moderates in Palestine and throughout the region who prefer life to death and the 21st century to the fourteenth.
I don't agree that the extreme views you describe in your second and third paragraphs "have dominated the debate over the Israeli-Hezbollah war." I have seen these views expressed, but rarely. Nearly every opinion I have seen has been very far from either of these extremes. So it seemed obvious that your very long post was going to attack strawman arguments; and therefore I stopped reading.
July 28, 2006 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hezbollah’s sole goal is the destruction of the State of Israel and the eradication of its people. And Hezbollah does not deny it.
Hezbollah has many goals. It is a Khomeinist organization that seeks to establish and Islamic republic in Lebanon. It has an elaborate political platform, most of which is focussed on Lebanon, and it participates in the Lebanese government.
The destruction of the State of Israel remains one of its goals. But it is a strange bit of hyperbole to describe that as its sole goal.
July 28, 2006 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the criticism. I amended the piece so that it is clear that I am not discussing the debate within the mainstream but at the noisy extremes.
July 28, 2006 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not so strange. Since I'm only discussing Israel, I refer to its sole goal which relates to Israel.
July 28, 2006 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Few enjoy being called either an anti-Semite or an Arab basher which invariably happens when one discusses this issue. Not to say that there aren’t plenty of anti-Semites and Arab bashers out there – and there is no reason not to label them as such – but name-calling cannot be allowed to stifle the debate. mjrosenberg (7/28/2006)
Get yourselves over to Aryan Nation where you belong. mjrosenberg (7/15/2006)
Well; isn't that just too, too precious.
July 28, 2006 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note: "Not to say that there aren’t plenty of anti-Semites and Arab bashers out there – and there is no reason not to label them as such."
I see no problem labelling anti-Semites as such or consigning them to Aryan nation.
Do you think that's precious? Thanks.
July 28, 2006 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ Rosenberg:
(Cross-commented from Steve Clemons' Chafee post):
Chafee's line of questioning represents hope for a reasonable potential in US Middle East policy. The sooner Palestine can become an independent state, beside a secure Israel and asserting a centralized authority, the sooner we can know for sure whether Palestine is a genuine root cause of political tensions or a cynical platitude for the sake of Arab-Muslim supremacy.
July 28, 2006 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll let go of the strawmen (No doubt M.J.'s clumsy way of making amends for calling everyone he disagreed with a Jew killer in his previous post.)
There's actually lots in this post that I agree with. Point 1 is that what's happening now is a tragedy for all sides. Point 2 is that without a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, you can kiss any chance of peace in the region a big, fat good-bye.
What's striking though is how much M.J. simply doesn't "get" Hezbollah. And to "get it" doesn't mean to make excuses for it. Everything he says about the horror of terrorism and the twisted ideology is spot on. But trying to dismiss Hezb as a bunch of ideological nut jobs is making a huge mistake. One that plays into Hezbollah's hands.
First, virtually everyone in the Arab world views Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement. They fought against Israeli occupation for 20 years. They won. If there had been a peace treaty, Israel would have had to pay reparations. No such treaty was ever signed and Israel held on to Chebaa, against Hezb's will.
So, from Hezb's point of view, the war still goes on.
I have to run, so I'll make 2 quick points.
M.J. makes two strategic mistakes:
1. He says: "Israel doesn't fight just ... but also a malignant ideology that reduces women to servitude, encourages the “honor killings” of rape victims."
Nonsense! First, that's none of Israel's business. Second, Turkey is best friends with Israel and... "honor killings" are common in Turkey, too. I don't see Israel doing much about that.
2. "I hope Israel wins its war with Hezbollah"
Don't we all? Seriously, that comment demonstrates a worrisome lack of understanding about the region. Hezbollah is native to South Lebanon: it ain't going nowhere. It provides all services, schools, hospitals, etc.
This talks reminds me of the same naivete one used to hear about Iraq: Failure is not an option. yeah, yeah.
Israel will have to sign a peace treaty with Lebanon that includes the interests of Hezbollah.
And the pledge "to destroy" Israel is a red herring. After all, remember the PLO: they, too, pledged to destroy Israel, and that changed and Rabin/Arafat shook hands, etc. No reason to think Hezbollah can't follow the same path.
At any rate, any talk of "destroying Hezbollah" is not worth the paper it's written on.
July 28, 2006 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on you know your being too clever here.
The problem with your broadside before is you didn't identify any specific posters that you felt were anti semites and let the accusation hang out there implying that everyone who disagreed with your post fit this defintiion.
July 28, 2006 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you choose to attack another country, even when the attack is wholly justified and has clear goals, one of the things you must do is consider how the military tactics you apply will work to achieve those goals. While I have heard no small number of politicians describe how Hezbollah would be destroyed through what is primarily an air campaign, even those expressions have now been modified to weakening Hezbollah. From the perspective of having destroyed some (or even much) of its infrastructure and arsenal, and having killed many of its fighters, at least in the short-term it is fair to say that Hezbollah has been weakened. But if you mean in terms of popular support and its ability to re-arm once the conflict has ended, Hezbollah may in fact have been strengthened by what has happened to date.
To the extent that it is possible to destroy Hezbollah, or diminish the long-term threat it poses to Israel, a significant, sustained ground offensive will be required. This is the position taken by a number of Israeli generals, as well as the position dictated by the history of this type of conflict. The benefit of an air campaign is that you can cause widespread devastation without putting your soldiers at risk. But if a politician promises that an insurgency or guerrilla force can be eliminated through an air campaign, the politician is either uninformed or is being deceptive. When has that ever happened?
There are also serious questions as to how any force, Israeli, international, or otherwise, could actually take control of the areas historically held by Hezbollah without getting involved in a protracted war similar to (or worse than) the U.S. battle against the so-called insurgency in Iraq. How do you put Hezbollah into a box if nobody is willing to put troops on the ground and engage in what will quite likely be a protracted ground war involving significant casualties, or for that matter without becoming a de facto occupying force instead of a peacekeeping force? It’s great to speak of disarming or dismantling Hezbollah, but we can’t do it from the air and nobody seems to be willing to do it from the ground.
Would it be helpful for Israel to resolve its border claims with its neighbors, assuming it would negotiate (or even dictate) reasonable terms. Despite your statements, Hezbollah does assert that Israel occupies Lebanese territory, specifically the Shebaa Farms. The UN and pretty much the rest of the world believes the Shebaa farms to be Syrian territory. If Israel were to declare which portions of the Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms would be returned if it achieved a peace agreement with Syria, it would be more difficult for a group like Hezbollah to argue, pretextually or genuinely, that ending Israel’s occupation was among its sincere goals - as its tactics would be overtly hindering the return of the occupied lands.
I think the history of Israel’s conflicts and failed peace negotiations evidence that border issues cannot be left to the end of the negotiation process - they need to come first. Such a proposal by Israel would also help diminish and perhaps even end the perception that Israel cares more about keeping significant portions of the lands it occupies than in negotiating an end to its conflicts with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians.
I think that your argument lends credence to an observation made many years ago by, I believe, Moshe Arens. He noted that Israel complained about the tactics utilized by the Palestinians, but had created a history where it would ignore the conflict during periods of calm then make concessions only when confronted with violence. When did Hezbollah score its most recent appreciable "victory" against Israel? In 2004 when it negotiated a prisoner exchange with Ariel Sharon. Many warned then, probably including Moshe Arens, that this would set Israel up for exactly what occurred - Hezbollah's grabbing Israeli hostages to use as bargaining chips.
July 28, 2006 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite traveling in Lebanon for many weeks during the past few years, I have never heard that Hizbullah's goal is to turn Lebanon into an Islamist state--with the confessional political system, and powerful counterbalances in the form of Sunnis and Christians, along with Lebanon's history, make this claim seem to be a canard, in order to ally the world against Hizbullah.
I'm not here to defend Hizbullah, however, it needs to be recognized that they are more than a terrorist organization, especially to the Shia, who are on the bottom rung of Lebanese society, and for whom Hizbullah are protectors when nobody else protected them, and provide social services, hospitals, etc.
Thus, the simplistic 'terrorist' label will end up working against those who favor a purely military solution.
July 28, 2006 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay.
I do not believe Israel can be expected to stop fighting until the Hezbollah threat is, at the very least, controlled. (mjrosenberg)
Israel will never control Hezbollah by fighting. By fighting, Israel will just get more fighting.
To make the rockets into Haifa stop and get its captured soldiers back, Israel needs an agreement with Hezbollah. Israel has arranged cease-fires and swapped prisoners with Hezbollah before and can do it again.
July 28, 2006 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
edit: sorry, duplicate post
July 28, 2006 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Israel wins its war with Hezbollah.
You know what, I hope the US wins its war against "Iraqi insurgents." Thing is: chances of that are as fat as the chances of Israel winning "its war with Hezbollah." AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. Hope in one hand, shit in the other. See which one fills up first.
Even if the Palestinian question were settled, the manner in which Israel continues to attack Lebanon and Hezbollah will only serve to generate more popular support for Hezbollah (and their ilk) throughout the Middle East. Just as the actions of the US in Iraq create insurgents and terrorists faster than it can eliminate them, so too will Israel's actions make dismantling Hezbollah an ever increasing impossibility.
July 28, 2006 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don’t think calling for a two-state peaceful solution is unique to your moderate (aren’t you reasonable?) position. Most of the “extremists” and “anti-Semites” who criticize Israel’s formation through taking of Palestine- or its continued Zionist expansion and intransigence- or the occupation, subjugation and killing of Palestinians (and yes, war crimes) call for a peaceful two-state solution.
So you say. But, it is apparent to many that not only are they resistance movements, but refusing to recognize the Palestinians’ human rights borders on racism itself. No connection between the Palestinians and Hizbullah? This must be the scariest turn of events to Israel and should scare the hell out of all of us: Sunnis and Shia joining in common cause to resist U.S. Israeli encroachment (a new M.E. order). The Muslim world and the rest of the world are not with us on this.
Damn, they’re bad shots.
Didn’t we invade Iraq to free these people? Hizbulluh was formed in resistance to Israel’s occupation of Lebanon. It is the Shi’ite party there. It wasn’t created to eradicate Israel. It used guerrilla tactics to drive Israel out. Its militia has targeted civilians as a strategy and should be condemned for thatand should answer for that. Ditto for Israel.July 28, 2006 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the following mindbending piece in Haaretz today, buried in an op-ed by Doron Rosenblum:
Lemme get this right. Nasrallah implied or suggested that Olmert had a small dick? I mean, did he? Did he?
Is this all you need to start a war these days? For real?
July 28, 2006 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note the in the new New Republic proclaiming that Hezbollah is a fanatical, apocalyptic religious army that can't be deterred, but that Israel's bombardment of Lebanese civilian infrastructure is a classical campaign of deterrence.
What is so peculiar (and grotesque) but not in any sense unsurprising about western and particularly American coverage of this unfolding catastrophe is the oblivious lack of context. The exchange of rocket and artillery fire between Hezbollah and Israel has continued off and on since Israel withdrew its forces from undisputed territories in Lebanon six years ago (however little it has been reported in the US press), and as nasty as Hezbollah is there are unresolved issues between Israel and Lebanon's Shiites.
There is the question of Shebaa farms, a prize bit of water-rich, arable land that a 1960s summit between Syria and Lebanon deemed to be Lebanese. The territory remained under Syrian control however, and was annexed as part of the Golan Heights by Israel; it remains under Israeli control today. Prime Minister Siniora has repeatedly told the Bush administration that compelling Israel to cede the Shebaa farms was the best if not only hope of empowering his government to fully implement 1559.
And of course there is the issue of Lebanese Shiites being held in Israeli prisons by the multitude.
None of these issues should be enough to justify continued rocket attacks into Israel, but the American media has portrayed this conflict as somehow arising from the ether, the dark hearts and minds of Hezbollah. What is unprecedented here (at least for recent times) though is the extent to which Israel has escalated the level of violence, not Hezbollah's actions.
And I'm not sure what Israel thinks it is accomplishing. Lebanon's population remains widely traumatized by a generation of civil war, and its government extremely fragile. The humanitarian crisis unleashed by this conflict has a not incidental chance of quickly becoming a political crisis as well, and the collapse of Siniora's government could follow. There are reports of Christian villages in the north refusing to accept Shiite refugees, and hints of a gathering anarchy in parts of the country.
What Israel may succeed in doing - apart from avenging its dead, and pride - is bringing about not just a humanitarian disaster with which the government of Lebanon cannot cope, but the ultimate dissolution of the country. And you can rest assured that the government of a new Shiite state in the south won't be run by liberal democrats.
Tell me again how that benefits Israel.
July 28, 2006 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This creates an impossible situation for Israel, though. Especially given its and its people's history. What you seem to be suggesting is that Israel should simply tolerate at a minimum low-level rocket attacks for the indefinite future. I think everyone agrees that striking back further embitters people. But is it really tenable not to react?
July 28, 2006 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The sooner Palestine can become an independent state, beside a secure Israel and asserting a centralized authority, the sooner we can know for sure whether Palestine is a genuine root cause of political tensions or a cynical platitude for the sake of Arab-Muslim supremacy."
At some point Zionista, you and Rosenberg are going to realize that peace with |Palestinians means engaging HAMAS not just Abbas in the process, instead of the current Israeli/neocon approach to marginalizing/decapitating/elinminating Hamas. I know Hamas does not now recognize Israel or its "right" to exist. Neither did Arafat/Fatah/PLA before they did recognize Israel. There is a justifiable criticism coming from the Israeli side that Abbas/PLA does not honor security agreements; they say they do not have the power and to do so as the Israelis want will lead to civil war. We can now watch and see if Israel, without the restraints partially self-imposed faced by Abbas, can create a secure northern border. We all know it cannot do this to its satisfaction. Any serious hope to reach a peace through negotiations has to go through Hamas; will it work? Not easily. On the other hand what easy answers are there?
July 28, 2006 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems entirely reasonable to me that Israel doesn't want temporary cease fires which allow Hizbullah to resume attacks the next time they want to. The alternative has real downsides as well, as you rightly point out. But Israel just isn't in a position to have daily life in the northern portion of the country at the sufferance of Hizbullah. It is a situation no other country would tolerate.
July 28, 2006 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would add too that some have suggested Israel intends to collapse the government of Prime Minster Siniora; I don't buy it. Even a casual awareness of Israeli media suggests something else, that Israel ascribes almost magical powers to Lebanon's new government, and really doesn't appreciate its weakness and fragility. This kind of thinking is the only good explanation (other than Old Testament vengeance) for Israel's extensive bombardment of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon. But what Israel doesn't seem to get is that brutal intimidation of Lebanon's government and civilian populace is not going to empower Siniora, or even lead the Lebanese population to demand - impotently - that their government fully implement UN 1559 (the only polling I have seen so far suggests that close to 90% of Lebanese support Hezbollah in this conflict), but has a not-incidental possibility of making Lebanon a failed state.
July 28, 2006 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you see Warren Christophers Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post? He calls for a cease fire. He gives as background the times that He worked out a cease fire after Hezbollah fired missiles at Israel in 1993 and again in 1996.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 28, 2006 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would Israel tolerate an international force empowered to shoot at anyone from either side caught violating an established no-go zone?
Would Israel agree to suspend operations of Mossad assasination cells within Lebanon?
Would Israel agree to stop peacetime overflights of Lebanon?
Would Israeli agree to stop threatening Lebanon over Lebanese useage of the Litani river?
Does it really serve Israel's purpose to destroy the most effective forces that stand between it and the far more savage shahids of al-Qaeda?
Unless there is a real perception of an even-handed solution however grudgingly amenable to all parties involved, all bets are off for anything other than more horrors to come.
July 28, 2006 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't recall where I found it, but I read earlier this weak about some results of a UN report on border violation incidents on the Israel/Lebanon border over the past several years. According to the report, there were significantly more incidents of border violation by the Israeli side than the Lebanese/Hizbollah side.
I don't recall the time frame, and don't have the data here. And I assume that many of those violations have to do with the Shebaa farms issue.
While I'm not particularly concerned, in a direct way, with what Israel wants or what Hizbollah wants, the international community has an interest in secure borders, and in preventing incidents that can lead to the sort of escalation we have seen recently. So I am in favor of some sort of stepped up international presence at the border. However, if it is true that the provocations come from both sides, I don't see why the "neutral zone" should all lie on the Lebanese side.
July 28, 2006 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
M. J. Rosenberg wrote
This seems to be a developing storyline - that Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and started firing rockets into Israel, and Israel had to react.
But it's not the story that was in the news on 13 July. Here's the Boston Globe of 13 July 2006:
Later on in the long report, it continues:
No mention at all of any Hezbollah rockets. The report is quite clear: Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, and within hours the IDF was inside Lebanon, and destroying roads and bridges in Lebanon. From the Boston Globe report, it can only be supposed that Hezbollah started firing rockets after the IDF had launched its campaign on Lebanon, and not before. One may draw the same conclusion from other news outlets.
But the story being put about now is that Hezbollah not only captured two Israeli soldiers, but started firing rockets into Israel as well. And that makes the Israeli response look rational: under a rain of missiles, Israel had to do something. But the reality, as set out by Doron Rosenblum in Haaretz today, is that it was simply the capture of the two Israelis, and Nasrallah's accompanying insulting speech, that really started it.
This embarrassing truth is now being buried, as history is rewritten.
July 28, 2006 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are enough answers here to both M;J Rosenbers's post and J. Marshall's comment.
So why were their descriptions of the situation so simplistic?
"This creates an impossible situation for Israel, though. Especially given its and its people's history."
The doctrine of exceptionalism.
I'd like Mr Rosenberg to tell me why I have a right to return to a place I've never been, and why the Palestinians do not. I am not denying the fact that the people of Israel are there and are not going to leave; I am asking him to defend the sense of moral -and intellectual- superiority that justifies the locking out of people from their homes. I would like to hear someone who is not a supporter of Kach or Kahane Chai tell me, not why a bi-national state is impossible (it isn't) but why it is undesirable.
Give me the liberal moral defense of a modern state built upon racial lines.
thank you.
July 28, 2006 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh,
In the short-term, Israel could go back to the old "rules of the game" with Hizbollah: See this 2004 article by Reuven Pedatzur in Haaretz:
July 28, 2006 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's some serious teeth-gnashing.
This is a strawman argument. It's important to note that not all people who "support the Israeli incursion to the hilt" were hard-core Likudniks who opposed Oslo and railed against the Gaza withdrawal. As an example, I cite myself. I supported both the Oslo process and the Gaza withdrawal. But I also support Israel's actions in Lebanon "to the hilt" in part because Israel's experiences since the Oslo process have convinced me that true peace with the Arabs is, if not a total fantasy, at least a very distant possibility.
But my support is also based on a changed view of the conflict. As long as the conflict was with the Palestinians, who do not by themselves pose an existential threat to Israel, one could argue that it made sense to test the limits of how far Israeli concessions could go to foster peace. At the very least, it made sense to withdraw from places like Gaza that hold no strategic value for Israel. But now the conflict is with a genocidal Islamist group that cannot be appeased. They represent the Islamization of the conflict and they must be destroyed or at least seriously degraded. Iran cannot be allowed to play a role in stirring up trouble on Israel's border.
What's remarkable is that MJ Rosenberg seems to get this, yet still is able to say the following:
Here we go completely off the rails. How does Israel negotiate with a government that is sponsoring (or at least refusing to crack down on) launching missiles at Israeli cities? OK, you say, so negotiate with Abbas. But hasn't it been shown by now that Abbas has no power to enforce anything? He is, in many ways, just like the beleaguered Lebanese prime minister, helpless to confront the armed gangsters who hold all the cards.
The formula of land for peace has been rendered inoperative by events. There is no chance that if Israel were to sign an agreement, that the Palestinians could enforce it. So what's the point? I think theoretically land for peace makes sense. But land for way is a non-starter. Yet there seems to persist this notion that the Palestinian situation must be resolved and it's up to Israel and the US to take action to resolve it. How? With whom? How can anyone seriously think that even if the Palestinians were given everything they have been asking for, they would agree to a true peace.
People always cite various polls that show majorities of Palestinians favoring a two-state solution. But that is totally irrelevant if they are unable to control the radical elements in their midst. Israel cannot be expected to make concessions based on nothing but empty promises by a corrupt, incompetent authority that has no power over and no willingness to confront the vicious killers in their midst.
July 28, 2006 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/07-25-2006/87300016bacb59d2.html
says that Hezbollah demanded at least 3 prisoners.
Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah has demanded the release of three Lebanese prisoners held by Israel. The prisoners include Samir Kantar, one of the seaborne PLO guerrillas who raided a house in the northern Israeli coastal town of Nahariya in 1979, took a man and his 5-year-old daughter hostage and then killed them. Israel did not provide details on the two other prisoners.
Apart from the Shibaa farms, there is also a dispute over the village/town of al-Ghajar, which is currently split into two. Israel was proposing to build a wall to make permanent the split.
July 28, 2006 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting question -- slightly off topic though.
(Walzer has tried to answer it: by comparing Israel to... Norway and its need for an identity separate from Sweden. I kid you not.)
Another intolerable conceit is that Israel speaks for all Jews. Olmert was in France a few weeks ago telling French Jews that they don't belong in France but in Israel.
French Jews don't belong in France?? Never mind that they've lived there for 2,000 years.
Olmert speaking like Le Pen. Lovely!
July 28, 2006 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will take a stab at it. You mention the doctrine of exceptionalism. I am not sure how you mean it, but the State of Israel was established in a very exceptional way with an exceptional history. Is it really necessary to describe the effects of the Holocaust on world Jewry and more broadly world Humanity? I do not think it ias necessary but it is a starting point for any discussion of Israel. Jews and Palestinians contended for domination of that geographic area for at least 50 years before Israel was established. British colonial policy here and elsewhere in the world was directed towards keeping both sides at each others throats; and the British were great at it. After World War II a conflict fought by much of the world there was a need for a way to rescue displaced and dispossessed and tortured and starved Jews. Many (not all) Jews wanted their own state; many other nations (including the US) did not want the refuse of the war; the question of statehood was decided by the UN after contentious debate. Why does that not establish the bona fides of Israel to any reasonable observer? In any case this is now ancient history, an act 50 years old. The Jews, the Israelis, are not leaving. They have a right to Israel as good as any other nation has to its land. If Israel decides it is a Jewish homeland and Jews can come there and be citizens, I am not sure what the problem is. I actually think many other nations have somewhat comparable provisions (possibly Poland?) as well. There is a serious problem with the Palestinian right of return which is a different question although it is natural to try to tie them together...I just do not think they go together. Clearly it would be suicide to allow enemies of the Israeli state to return and try to destroy it. I think many Palestinians fled the new Jewish state out of fear and many were forced out...the same is true of a large number (certainly smaller number than the Palestinians) of Sephardic Jews expelled out of Algeria, Yemen, Egypt and the Muslim Middle East. Do they have a right of return too or is it just Palestinians? Do the Crimean Tatars have a right of return? I would hope the world, including the bloody Saudis, the Germans, the British would help the Palestinians. Certainly they have suffered greatly. Returning them to Israel would create new conflict and I guess I do not understand on what this is based. My family fled pogroms and unsettled political conditions and persecution in the Ukraine in the 1920's...can I go back and claim the family home? You can be my attorney.
July 28, 2006 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink