Zvi Bar’el in a recent Haaretz:
Until this war, Lebanon was the dream of all those who believe in multiculturalism. It is the only state that grants equal rights to some 18 ethnic groups and sects, which managed, albeit with great difficulty, to build a balanced political system and in the last year was given a global round of applause for evicting a foreign occupier, Syria. The country was heading in the right direction, economic growth was surging, foreign currency reserves were piling up, reaching some $13 billion, tourism was flourishing, and this year was supposed to be the best year ever for tourism. In the terms of military minds focused on targets, Lebanon was a country with a lot to lose. […]
This is why I disagree with Judeosphere and cannot accept Avi Bell’s critique of the Human Rights Watch position. Bell faults HRW for not stating Lebanon’s obligations under UN 1373 to act against Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Yes, it is a terrorist organization, but to invoke this at a time when Israeli missiles are falling on Lebanese civilians in minibuses fleeing the fighting is to miss the point. As Bar’el notes above, the Israeli actions aren’t just hurting Hezbollah, they’re hurting everything about Lebanon that could conceivably defang Hezbollah. (Bell also defends the bombing of Beirut’s airport — again I remind you, named in honor of Rafik Hariri, the top Lebanese democrat cut down by the very Hezb/Syrian elements that Israel is seeking to uproot.)
In a related post, Judeosphere cites Andrew Sullivan, who greatly disappoints with the following:
…despite the horrifying toll on Lebanon’s infrastructure and civilians, the Israeli response does not seem to me to be disproportionate to the existential threat it faces – and would face even more starkly if Hezbollah became the emboldened tip of the Iranian spear.
Sullivan’s brilliance deserts him here. There are times, too many times, when the “existential threat” card is played in defense of the indefensible. (And this holds for the entire human race, not just Israelis and/or Jews, as the antisemites imagine.) I do not deny the indecency of Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric, which continues and even escalates; I have made it a priority on this blog to denounce it and everything that resembles it and everyone who tries to excuse it. There’s also the refusal of the ultras on the left to acknowledge that Hezbollah holds everything south of the Lebanese border, not just Shebaa Farms, to be “occupied Palestine.” Of course there are existential issues in play here. Whether they amount to an existential threat, and more importantly, whether that perceived threat should be driving Israeli military policy, is another thing altogether. Sullivan gets it horribly wrong.
So do the liberal hawks. Harry’s Place is calling people out to pro-Israel demonstrations. As Marc Cooper notes once again, there is “absolutely no daylight between Republicans and Democrats” on this issue. And who’s got a chokehold on left street-protest politics, still? The forces behind people like George Galloway, who is unashamedly pro-Hezbollah, and a true innovator in the arena of extremism. (One has to hand him that much.)
P.S. — This morning a BBC radio reporter put very tough questions to a rep from al Manar, Hezbollah’s media outlet, asking him what was the justification for launching rockets at Israeli cities. Good. The rep dodged the question, of course. The BBC is often attacked for being anti-Israel. It’s not.
P.P.S. — On the same program an Israeli military consultant said that Israel will not be able to dismantle Hezbollah. “Sometimes in life you go for the second best,” he said. Not sure what that means, but the pragmatic scenario would be for Hezb to disarm, continue its social services (with transparency) and continue its parliamentary role. That’s the best Israel’s going to get. Killing hundreds and displacing well over half a million may go down in history as one of Israel’s gravest mistakes.
Comments are closed.