Reflections on Israel/Hezbollah

Here are some reflections after returning from Scotland.

My wife Angie was quite irritated at the anti-Israel bent to European media, probably corresponding to similar pro-Israel American leanings (with there being exceptions on both sides). And let's make no bones about it--the rest of the world largely hates us right now and are making alliances against us (e.g., Chavez is trying to make alliances with Russia right now). There were a couple times in Scotland where I wondered if cold interactions had anything to do with me being an American.

First, I am not opposed in theory to Israel taking the opportunity of two captured soldiers to try to castrate Hezbollah. I do not consider Hezbollah a force for any good in the world and wholly favor its castration. I agree with the words, "Israel has a right to defend itself." And sometimes, the best defense is a good offense.

And I deplore the way the UN community tends to find fault only with Israel and wink at Hezbollah. If Lebanon had followed the UN resolution for the disarmament of southern Lebanon, this presumably would not be happening.

[Insert here an aside on the UN as a bit of a farse as it currently operates. I want it in NY so that we have significant power in its doings. But I think we should think of it as what it is--a place for powerful and not so powerful nations to discuss world issues and work for consensus. But we should not pretend that it stands for truth or justice or that any of its member states are ultimately anything but self-interested entities. Its claim to broker right and wrong is a farse, in my opinion, and I am sympathetic to Bush's decision not to be a part of the Hague (gray issue for me).]

But at the same time, this is all "in theory." In practice things get substantially messier. I do not know the process by which the real Israel has gone about bombing Lebanon. I do believe that Hezbollah deliberately launches missiles from civilian locations knowing that Israel will retaliate in a way that will result in innocent deaths. In this I fault Hezbollah more than Israel.

But I pity those who have little option other than to fight for Hezbollah (given where they are born) or must stay put because their husband or father fights for Hezbollah. I am not for the annihilation of everyone who lives in south Lebanon or who even in their theory opposes the existence of Israel as a state. But I accept the right of Israel to fight those who actively fight against them and, in the light of first act aggressions by Hezbollah, those who have been actively seeking to fight against them.

On the other hand, I have gone on record as believing that war favors the violent. Regardless of what some leader thinks in Jerusalem. Some individual Israeli soldier will cross the line at some point and kill someone who shouldn't be killed. I would like to believe that the killing of UN peace keepers or the bombing of Red Cross ambulances by Israel are accidents. But I cannot be sure at all that these were not acts of spite born by hate in the midst of war (I can conceive of them reaching the highest levels of Israel, although I hope not). Of course I consider all non-military bombings of Hezbollah to be immoral. And frankly all bombings by Hezbollah are stupid since they haven't got a chance.

I think I understand the bombing of gas stations where Hezbollah might get gas and of satellite antennae that Hezbollah uses. Israel has destroyed infrastructure that Hezbollah might have used, even though such infrastructure served all of Lebanon. In all out war especially you would need to eliminate the resources of your enemy even when they are shared by the innocent.

But I am not sure that this should be categorized as all out war at this point. I think it would have been far more profitable in the long term--even if not in the short term--for Israel to work together with the anti-Hezbollah parties of Lebanon rather than to act as it seemingly has against Lebanon's overall infrastructure. It is at this point that I fear (though I am open to being convinced otherwise) Israel has gone beyond what it should have either morally or prudentially.

It is my contention that truly human ethics must consider innocent humans as ends in themselves. And by innocent I mean by the Western standard of "all individuals on the basis of their actions" and as a Christian I mean "all individuals are created in the image of God." In other words, you cannot consider guilty the wife, child, or even inactive party member of Hezollah. The guilty are those who have acted or actively supported those who have so acted. Any other position is not Christian.

I hear some Americans these days considering the children and wives of the guilty to be guilty by proxy. This is unamerican thinking (all "men" are created equal... with certain inalienable rights), even if it is the natural tendency of the human animal, which is a herd animal in my view. To think this way is the way humans tend, but the Western tradition at its peak rose above it. We are not nobly human if we succumb to our animal default.

Things get a little messier I think in "all out" war, and I would not at this point classify the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in that category. I am trying to make fine distinctions here, but I believe they are very important in such complex and high stakes matters.

And I also want to go on record as saying the notion of a "war on terror" is far too imprecise in referent to push to the higher degree of all out war without considering specifics. I believe the blanket conception that gives absolute license against anyone we might place under such a non-specific heading as a "war on terror" potentially damnable and immoral in consequence.

To speak of a "war on terror" is a different mode of speaking than saying that we are in a "war with Saddam Hussein." The two must not be confused--it is sloppy and dangerous logic. We are certainly warring with terror around the world. But I reject categorically any move to literal war against specific enemies without more concrete discussion of that specific enemy. This is an atrocious leap in logic and bad thinking. It is the logic that puts a Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda in the same category--that transfers an appropriate action against the one to the other without significant consideration of the difference. Good thinking and good ethics requires more precision than this, especially when we're talking about war.

So this is my very limited appraisal of the Israeli-Hezbollah situation from where I sit--without access to Israel's war room or the streets of Lebanon. I support the appropriateness of Israel to pursue Hezbollah and bomb sites in southern Lebanon. I support Israel's agenda to disarm Hezbollah as much as possible. I am flabbergasted at the irrational, self-defeating, and yet persistent refusal of groups like Hezbollah (Hamas, anyone?) to accept that the nation of Israel is here to stay. Get over it and move on to your own benefit and that of your people even more.

Yet I think Israel is self-defeating as well and indiscriminate in its manner of attack, that it shoots itself in the foot by its lack of caution. Defeat open aggressors; convince would be aggressors not to become agressors; win over the unconvinced. The operating policy that Israel seems to follow is "Defeat open aggressors and anyone, let's say, in south Lebanon, give or take; convince would be aggressors to become aggressors when they have the chance (maybe when they grow up); and win over the unconvinced to the other side. And this is the way I believe our actions in Iraq have also played out so far, despite good intentions on Bush's part.