I’ve been paying close attention to the events in Israel and find myself conflicted. Personally, I do not advocate violence, however, I am not so naive to believe that it is completely unnecessary. That said, the Jewish state finds itself under attack from a radical ideology which seeks no less than its utter destruction. When faced with an enemy who seeks to annihilate you, I see no problem with retaliation. However, the very nature of the enemy ensures that such defensive actions will lead to civilian casualties. Indeed, the radicals (Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.) operate within the same territory as other civilians. Therefore, when combating strongholds of these terrorist organizations, innocents will be killed. This is not a justification, rather a fact regarding the nature of the battle. Indeed, it seems that even if Israel succeeds in wiping out Hezbollah offices or leaders, the damage done will amount to a net loss. With the death of each innocent, passions in the Muslim world will be further inflamed against not only Israel, but also the US and the West in large. It seems, thus, that Israel’s actions are not prudent.
But to stop the analysis at this point would be incomplete. Although this method of massive retaliation may seem barbaric, so too are the tactics employed by the enemy. And the difficulty here is that, unlike previous global conflicts, this one is even harder to trace to a single source; that is, radical Islamic terrorism, which is the manifestation of the desire for Islam to triumph over all people, is nurtured worldwide. September 11th, the London/Madrid/Bali/etc. bombings all are the “fruits” of this labor. We can expect more.
Unfortunately, it is at this point in the game where types like Bush/Cheney step in, insert the period, while admonishing us to be afraid and to continue supporting their war. Although this is indeed a war, between extremists and a more moderate and pluralistic vision of humanity, our current black/white policies do little to genuinely support our side. Instead, we must blend pragmatism with effective action.
As progressives/liberals we must admit that radical Islam (or Islamo-Fascism) is a real threat. The goal of this movement, as stated before, is world domination in the name of Islam. This idea is not particularly new, nor is it one to which only Islam is prone. The difference is that this specific strain of Islam, which is practiced in many places globally, allows no accommodation for non-believers. To these adherents, Islam is the only true path, and therefore any and all other paths are inferior and to be eliminated. Murder becomes justified, indeed glorified. As far as these people are concerned, the global goal is accomplished through small victories. Since the United States is such a large and formidable military force, it is unlikely that radical Islamists will anytime soon destroy it. However, victories are being won on smaller stages. Just recently, an article in the NY Times described how Sha’ria, or Islamic law, has been adopted in Banda Ache province in Indonesia. Similar victories, outside of the traditional Middle East, signify the success of this de-centralized movement. And just as Americans recruit the best intellectual minds to its Universities, the Islamo-Fascist movement recruits the most gullible/desperate/misinformed/brainwashed to its own training camps. Thus as this army grows, it becomes more internationalized.
Since the destruction of the US is not feasible at present, Israel assumes the brunt of attacks, as witnessed by the endless suicide bombings and rocket fire to which it is subject within its territory. Israel is not the United States. However, to claim that the interests of Israel and the United States do no coincide regarding this issue is pure folly. The hatred of our enemy against the Jews and the West is really one in the same, and though Christians may be larger than the Jews in number, rest assured that you too are unacceptable and will be dealt with. The fate of Israel will largely be the fate of the West, and our ability to combat this enemy globally. Israel may be doing it wrong, but the idea is right. This movement must first be contained, and then eliminated. But this is hard work, and frankly, the traditional notions of combat do not seem to apply. Tanks and fighter planes can only do so much to destroy a perverted ideology. But re-education is not impossible; witness the turnaround of post-Nazi Germany into a multicultural powerhouse.
The real war will involve isolating those who preach hate while assisting those who teach a version of religion that is truly pro-life. But when individuals act out of fear, such nuance is most often lost. With September 11th, we got a taste of that fear, and I fear, like the hawkish Israelis, we are making similar mistakes – namely with Iraq. What we must remember is that radicalism takes hold easily in non-democratic societies. Oppression is the name of the game across much of the Middle East, and thus more moderate voices tend to be silenced. Our task in the upcoming years will be to help build institutions that give such voices a greater audience. This, coupled with the isolation and destruction of those who shamelessly advocate violence, is the real path to victory. The time for action is now, but we must not rush into the battle without some damn good plans. Unfortunately this is not what we have done, and we are now saddled with the additional burden of undoing the damage caused by recent actions. Let’s face up to this threat honestly so that we can truly defeat it.
Thank you for this insightful essay. My only disagreement is with the assertion
that “[w]ith the death of each innocent, passions in the Muslim world will be further inflamed against not only Israel, but also the US and the West in large. It seems, thus, that Israel’s actions are not prudent.”
I do not believe that we can further inflame the Muslim world; the extremists have drowned out all other voices for decades and have nutured a sick culture of xenophobia, self-pity and hatred. We cannot appease or mollify them, we cannot win them over.
If fighting back enrages them, TFB. If we can’t be loved, we must be feared, as Machiavelli recommended.
I agree with Matt’s assertion that violence towards the Muslim world on the part of Israel and America begets hatred amongst Muslims on the street, making it easier for terrorist groups to recruit their army. I also belive that this must be considered in the cost-benefit analysis of acts of warfare against violent elements in the Muslim world, but it must not be the be-all and end-all of that cost-benefit analysis.
Though I believe that the United States and Israel frequently misjudge where to draw the line, I firmly believe that Israel is making the right decision by attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon.
First, we must examine the effects of Hezbollah on Israel. Hezbollah’s cross-border attacks, kidnappings of soliders, and constant rocket fire on and shelling of towns in northern Israel has created an intollerable sitaution for Israelis, in terms of fear, death and destruction, and economic damage. No normal country would tolerate this and neither should Israel.
Second, the culture of the Middle East is a product of the not-so-distant past when the region was governed by rigid soical norms and the rough justice that enforced them, rather than governments. Two Bedouin proverbs best define this culture: 1) “I and my brother against my cousin, I and my cousin against the stranger” and 2) “An old man has his chicken stolen, and his son’s say ‘don’t worry about it, it’s just a chicken’. The next day, the man’s camel is stolen, and he says to his sons ‘someone stole my chicken’ The third day, his daughter is raped and he says to his sons, ‘someone stole my chicken.” The first illustrates how this culture is fixated around building defensive aliances against others based on family and ethnic lines. The second illustrates the system of peace enforced by deterrance. The theives tested the old man by stealing his chicken. When he didn’t retaliate, they escallated by stealing his camel, and so on. If he had retaliated at any point, he would have restored his aura of strength, making enemies think twice about attacking.
The same applies to Hezbollah. Every time Israel fails to respond to Hezbollah’s provocations, Hezbollah will see Israel as weak and be emboldened to attack more harshly the next time. Each time Israel responds in a decided and strong manner, Hezbollah will be more likely to think twice before provoking another attack out of fear for damaging its status in Lebanon.
Israel’s defense against Hezbollah is especially important for America because Hezbollah is not an independent guerrilla group, but rather a proxy army for Iran. Iran founded the Pashadran (the predecessor of Hezbollah) in the 1970’s and has been supporting them ever since with arms, money, training and political cover. Iran uses Hezbollah to fight proxy wars against Israel as well as Sunis, Christians and Druze in Lebanon. By fighting its wars by proxy, Iran can escape most of the political isolation and the millitary response that it would be subjected to by fighting open wars. If Israel fails to stand up against Hezbollah, then Iran will only be emboldened. So I agree with Machiavelli.
An excellent piece with much to chew over.
I completely agree. It appalls me how many people satisfy themselves with the David-vs-Goliath delusion: tanks and armor vs. freedom fighters with rifles, Zionist aggression, so on and so on. It’s always easier to have good guys and bad guys, and it seems to me that a dismaying proportion of supposedly educated people out there content themselves with misguidedly romanticized notions about who they’re supporting.
Agreed, Israel’s ferocious response is not going to help affairs in the Middle East. However, I’m with Andrew that the alternative reaction – essentially, nothing – would send an even more damaging message. When Israel finally began moving out of Gaza and dismantling settlements, the Hezbollah militants didn’t take this as a move of conciliation – they stepped up their attacks so they could claim to have driven Israel away. These are not, for the most part, people who can be reasoned with. And this conflict, as seems to frequently be the case, wasn’t initiated by Israel.
That said, I read a New York Times article just yesterday on how the Irag, Afghanistan, and Lebanon offensives have marginalized Arab moderates like never before. Any questioning of the hardliners is seen as support for the West (read: Bush/Blair), which makes effecting social change harder than ever.
I believe the war on terror needs to be fought, but I think the West has done a woefully draconian job of fighting it. The result is that we’ve made heroes out of war criminals who would otherwise be condemned by their own people, to say nothing of the world.
I’ll end with a saying of my own: Choose one’s battles. Some battles, like Iraq and Vietnam, are wasteful political maneuvers. And some, like World War II, must be fought to prevent a far worse outcome. I don’t know how Israel’s current battle is going to turn out, but I would consider Hezbollah’s destruction a victory, albeit a costly one.
Side comment: Matt, maybe you could tweak your style sheet to make links more obvious. I linked to the article I mentioned, but the link is indistinguishable from plain text so I doubt readers would think to click on it.
Great essay. I saw your review in IT2M and wanted to check out your page.
I find myself completely conficted on our global policies. On the one hand, as a libertarian, I believe America would do well to keep to ourselves and let the world sort out their own problems. Even Israel. Nobody likes us anyway, we might as well stay out of the fracas.
On the other hand, I see scenarios like the tragedies playing out in Darfur and I think we have a moral obligation to use our resources to help. Except that when we help, we always end up becoming the new bad guy and breeding new terrorists.
Tricky, tricky.
You and I probably wouldn’t agree on much policy-wise, but I like your writing.