I've seen arguments on both sides of this conflict, but I thought I would post this article from the paper this morning.
Backing Israel Is best of a set of bad choices
By Jonathan Chait
Special to the Los Angeles Times
Let's face it, Israel's counteroffensive in Lebanon doesn't seem to be going very well. Liberals are saying it. Conservatives are saying it. Plenty of Israelis are saying it.
But here is the odd thing: Nobody is paying very careful attention to the alternative. The criticism of Israel's ground campaign -- however sound much of it may be -- takes place against an implicit assumption that peace could be at hand if only Israel stops fighting.
Let's examine that idea. The United Nations-types argue that Israel should withdraw from Lebanon and cease its airstrikes and that an international force should patrol southern Lebanon. But every country that could contribute to such a force has insisted they don't want to fight Hezbollah. Kofi Annan has said that a "cardinal principle" of any peacekeeping force would be obtaining Lebanon's consent. And neither Hezbollah nor the Lebanese government has evinced any willingness to remove Hezbollah's forces from southern Lebanon.
From the doves there is a persistent disconnect between the goals they desire and the means to achieve them. Here is what former President Carter wrote in a recent Washington Post Op-Ed article: "The urgent need in Lebanon is that Israeli attacks stop, the nation's regular military forces control the southern region, Hezbollah cease as a separate fighting force, and future attacks against Israel be prevented."
The passive voice in this last clause -- "attacks be prevented" -- is telling. Who is going to prevent them? Israel went into Lebanon because nobody else had the desire or the inclination.
So, the doves' implied solution is that Israel withdraws from Lebanon and stops bombing, and that Hezbollah goes on its way. This is why they've pointed out that not many Israelis have died from rocket attacks since 2000.
But the death toll doesn't quite capture the damage wrought by Hezbollah. The purpose of the missile attacks is to force Israelis to live under a constant threat -- missile attacks or cross-border raids that, while sporadic, can occur at any time. No nationwould consider that condition acceptable. And even if Israel learns to take periodic attacks from Hezbollah with good cheer, there's no guarantee that the attacks won't get worse. After all, Hezbollah is acquiring newer, more powerful rockets from Iran.
So what can Israel do? The conventional wisdom holds that any military action is counterproductive. The doves point out that the Israeli counteroffensive has boosted Hezbollah's standing in the Arab world.
Well, sure. But Hezbollah's prestige was also boosted by Israel's 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon. If aggressive Israeli actions boost Hezbollah, and conciliatory Israeli actions boost Hezbollah, then maybe Israel's actions aren't really the prime mover here. Maybe Hezbollah has figured out that it can become the champion of the Arab world by putting itself forward as Israel's chief antagonist, and it will continue to do so regardless of how Israel responds.
The doves are right that any solution that involves attacking innocent civilians is a terrible one. It's heartbreaking to see houses flattened and children killed. But when you have a nation populated in part with murderous religious fanatics who delight in killing enemy civilians and see the deaths of their own civilians as a strategic boon, any option is going to be terrible.
Israel is hoping to change the equation, to force Lebanon to take control of its border or accept an outside force that would do so. The tactic of striking Hezbollah has some chance of bringing that about. Stopping the attack and hoping for the best has no chance at all.
Chait is a senior editor at The New Republic.
Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-08-08 07:27:34)