Setting A Good Example
This has been a big year for Lebanon, kicking out Syria, democratic elections, progress toward its diverse potential, getting shredded and decimated by its democratic neighbor to the south.
Would Israel have attacked and continued to attack its fledgling democratic neighbor with such ferocity if the U.S. had not invaded, shredded and decimated Iraq in the name of a war on terror?
Would Israel have attacked and continued to attack its fledgling democratic neighbor with such ferocity if the U.S. had not invaded, shredded and decimated Iraq in the name of a war on terror?
posted by JRB at 9:21 PM
19 Comments:
Hizballah has fired over 1600 rockets into Israel within the last few months from Lebanon.
If a band of idealogues who hated the U.S. fired 10 rockets into Nebraska from Canada, what would be the number at which it would be okay to fire back? Do you think we would have shown the same restraint? Would Germany or Spain or France? (Okay, forget the France part) When can you hit back to try to stop missiles landing on your lawn? When is the host country to be held accountable for letting them operate from their lawn?
I have no doubt Israel would not have punched Lebanon had it not been the site from which the firing came. They are fighting Hizbullah, who has sworn to wipe out Israel, so they are fighting for their survival. Lebanon just happens to be where Hizbullah has been allowed to operate.
Glad to see you back on the blog. I hope the move went okay. Are you getting any sleep? Our new babies all kept waking us up until they were about 6 years old.
An addendum: (that's Latin for "icing") I just read an editorial which made the case that US foreign policy dating all the way back to Viet Nam has pretty much messed up or directed the current situation in the Middle East, and it is true that no matter what we try to do in the area, it seems to backfire and set the table for some future miry mess. (i.e. propping up Sadaam for so long since he was an irritant to Iran, etc). I know Viet Nam is not in the Middle East, but some of our decisions immediately after that mess were based on our unwillingess to get involved because of the legacy of Viet Nam, and then when we did get involved, it actually made the situation worse in many cases.
Everything has an effect, and your question is a good one. I don't have the answer.
I didn't mean to imply an answer, either. My initial thought was that the US is doing much less to mediate the situation or regulate Israel than we normally would because we don't have much standing or credibility in either camp to broker a solution.
As it stands, Israel has far more valid justification for their actions in Lebanon against Hez than we had in invading Iraq. I just hope that Israel isn't so effective that Leb loses its baby government. Hez (with Iran, Syria or both) picked this fight, so they deserve their comeupance. My greater concern is the strategic timing. Why did Hez, Iran, Syria or all of them chose now and here to pick this fight? I don't buy the argument that Iran just wanted a "distraction" from the nuclear issue, but I certainly think they must be calculating something big and nefarious.
JRB--
It's my understanding that U.S. diplomats are among those from Europe and the Middle East gathered in Rome as we speak urging "restraint" on the part of Israel. And yes, there is some irony in that since Israel's response is much more in keeping with classic, just war doctrine than the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
I think Israel would have defended herself in the same way regardless of the U.S. foray into Iraq.
My thought was the same as yours when this started--that this had to be an opening, tactical thrust in order to judge Israeli (and world) parry, with some far more dastardly strategy waiting in the wings.
Welcome back to Bama.
Mike, I read today that the Rome talks have collapsed today. I am very proud of Condi Rice for trying out some early shuttle diplomacy this week. I'm not saying that we're not trying and not trying well, but our foray into Iraq almost four years ago burned a lot of political and diplomatic credibility in a region where we always struggle.
It's mighty good to be back in Alabama. In fact, I'm writing even now from the law libary at FU/JSL, as they fit out my new office. We even had a pediatrician appoint for the new little girl this morning, so we're starting to feel right at home.
I like Montgomery a lot--many good memories of soccer at the YMCA and AUM. I've never been to the Faulkner campus, though. I'll have to remedy that next trip.
Glad that you're getting well settled. Nothing like finding a doctor who's taking new patients and getting a quick appointment in a new town.
"I certainly think they must be calculating something big and nefarious."
Ahmadinejad has said the international community will get his answer on the nuclear question on August 22. This could mean he will actually give an answer, or it could mean something much more ominous. Stay tuned...
Sure, the Israelis would have reacted the same regardless of our activities in Iraq. The Israelis act independently on pretty much any issue. The disregard the UN and the US in lots of situations.
For example, at the same time we were invading Iraq because they disallowed UN weapon inspectors into their country, the Israelis were not allowing UN Humanitarian inspectors into Janin, after the Israelis had massacered hundereds of Palestinians as the current Intifadah was really gaining steam. Those inspectors never were allowed into Janin, but the consequences for those actions were nonexistent.
Israel will always act independently of the international community's wishes and the U.S. will probably always support their actions, or at least look the other way.
Time for a game of Mario Kart with Ike.
I doubt we could have ever done anything to prevent the Israelis from retrobution by terrorists who murder their citizens. And who else exactly who did we have credibility with in that region prior to invading Iraq? it's not as if we have had some kind of consistent and logical policy in the middle east over the past 50 years. we've played both sides of the fence time after time.
Shane, we had credibility and perhaps some moral authority with Israel. The root of my question springs from the hypothetical in my mind; what if the U.S. declared to Israel, "We strongly advise you to resist heavy military action. Please do not invade Lebanon. Please do not attack civilian areas. Please be cooler and rely more on diplomacy. Please do not escalate this punk street-fighting into a full blown hot war. We are your only real friend, so heed our advice."
What would happen then? Israel, of course, would respond, "Where do you get off, Iraq invader, telling us how to protect ourselves?" They'd be right, too.
Now, without arguing the merits, I suggest that we completely foreclosed such an option. As a business man, you should appreciate, and as a lawyer, I certainly appreciate, that keeping options and choices available as long as possible is the strongest posture. We had only two options: sit by and watch things unfold without any real say in matters, or throw in with Israel and go to war with Syrian and Iran right away. We cut off a hundred future options for ourselves by racing to war with Iraq.
Now, as someone on NPR just said in my ear, if this really is the beginning of WWIII (with which I do not agree), then we should be at war alongside Israel while the time is right. If we persist in thinking that we have no options between full war or total abandonment, then we shortchange ourselves and the entire world.
Condi Rice does us no favors by insisting that we are the patrons of a new order in the Middle East. We do not have the capital or the understanding or the standing among the parties to broker any such redemption. That may be the result more of decades of failure, rather than invading Iraq.
Someone else just said in my ear, "Iran is everything we said that Iraq was to justify war." I agree with that sentiment, but war in Iran was too tough and lacked any immediate justification. Now, we don't have the capacity to do what we need to do in the other neighborhoods.
Interesting insight:
http://www.slate.com/id/2146699/nav/tap2/
Our probably errant invasion of Iraq aside, Israel has and will do as she pleases regardless of our proding. Our invasion of Iraq didn't cause us to lose credibility with Israel. Israel enjoys the relationship it has with the U.S. Israel enjoys the $3B we give her each year. Israel enjoys the custom built F-16s and Apache Gunships we let her buy with our money. But when Israel decides it needs to fight with its neighbors for awhile, she doesn't ask us for permission or guidance on "proportionate responses". Israel does as she pleases.
Had we not invaded Iraq, Israel's response would be, ""Where do you get off telling us how to protect ourselves?"
Maybe we should ask the American sailors, who were onboard the U.S.S. Liberty when Israel attacked her, what they think that Israel thinks about the American and international opinion of her.
Israel loves to be loved, but doesn't care or hesitate to be hated.
NPR is being silly - this is not the beginning of WWIII. WWIII won't happen until the Jews (primarily funded by American evangelical Christians) decide to build the third temple.
NPR and its pundits aren't the only ones talking about WWIII. They just happened to be the ones JRB heard this morning. There is a lot of that (Very unnecessary and premature) talk going around.
I think that the current discussion is another example of how governments and other power brokers utilize the language and tactics of fear to convince people that their solutions (typically the tendency toward violence as a means to stop violence of various forms) are the proper ones.
Of course, I have been sorely out of the loop on some of the happenings of late, due to a lack of time around the internet and TV. You'll have that when people are demanding your time for everything from talking about their latest highschool breakup to constructing play sets to visiting the gerontology crowd at the nursing home... :-)
Besides, you polisci and business types know more about this whole international relations and war thing than a minister would. Maybe I should have fought the temptation to type this after all...
Eric Livingston,
You're my personal Israel expert, and I greatly appreciate your insight into these matters. I wish you could tell all of your tales to expound on your expertise.
Declaring this WWIII is desperately premature and a grasping attempt at branding to justify escalation. If Iran or North Korea nuke Tokyo or Tel Aviv, then it may just be on.
JRB, did your email address change? If so, send me your new one.
Since I mentioned the USS Liberty, I have to reference this site:
www.nsa.gov/liberty
It is, bar none, the most interesting site on the interenet to me for several reasons.
You can listen to the Hebrew audio and read the translated English transcripts of the events surrounding the attack on the USS Liberty.
This event isn't closely related to the current situation, but it does provide insight into Israel's attitude to foreign (including American) interference in what they see as homeland defense.
EL -
I haven't listened to the site yet, but I have been reflecting on your comments about Israel's selective deference to U.S. influence on their affairs. You seem to say that we have no real influence except that we have by virtue of our money and financing to the little state. I say, is that not the foremost form of influence. Can they be so confident in our internal politics to know that they can abuse our patronage?
I am reluctant to think that they act so cavalierly without our say. Today I read where their foreign minister was seeking "10 days leave" for full blown operations, from Condi Rice. Is that not a sign that we have considerable say in their military operations? If so, then we our actions in Iraq have more far reaching effect than we expect, when we still must arm and finance Israel yet loose our credible standing to ask them to impose diplomatic restraint.
I saw an news conference with Shimon Peres last night. He was asked "Do you feel pressure from the White House to stop bombing Lebanon?" His response was, "I feel no pressure." Condi and the Bush administration are trying to achieve a cease fire while right now over 10,000 Israeli troops are invading Lebanon. If we are asking for diplomatic restraint, they seem to be ignoring it.
One of three things must be happening: 1. Bush publicly says he wants a cease fire and then behind closed doors gives Israel the green light, 2. Bush isn't effectively communicating his desire for a cease fire, or 3. Israel is thumbing their nose at Bush's desires.
If Peres says he feels no pressure then Bush must be telling him something different than what he says to the press, or Peres is disregarding Bush's wishes. Yes?
Can they be so confident in our internal politics as to abuse our patronage? I think so. We have supported Israel against the region since about 6 hours after the state was birthed by the UN. They have never seen a time in history where we have not supported them. Why would they think we might stop?
Even if we did stop supporting them, it would punch them in the pocketbook, but they would be fine economically. Israel has the 16th highest income per capita in the world. They are so far more advanced militarily than their neighbors that our missing aid wouldn't affect them for decades.
...
I suspect Iran will never have the capability to nuke Tel Aviv. I suspect Israel will take out the reactors in Tehran before they have the capability to strike - just like they did in Iraq in the 80s.
...
Here is a good article about the events in Jenin that I refered to earlier:
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Feature/israel_blocks_un_mission_to_jenin.htm
...
Here is a good site about our foreign aid to Israel:
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
rest of link to Jenin article
israel_blocks_un_mission_to_jenin.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home