The Disproportionate Use of Force

Israel will only be giving the terrorists what they want if they show restraint. If they launch a full-on invasion of Gaza and Lebanon and kill a lot of important (and unimportant) people, I think slightly more highly-placed terrorists will wind up dead than had been planning on it this week.

Ryan or Josiah,

Any thoughts on the rationale behind this most recent oubreak of violence in the Middle East? It seems uniquely detached from any pragmatic goal even by the special standards of the region. Usually terrorist violence there has been linked to at least some kind of demand for change, e.g., a wish to influence a Knesset decision or the outcome of an imminent international conference. Is it just that the jihadists in the area are feeling that their brothers in Iraq have been hogging the limelight? Or is it that they awoke from an extended stupor induced by a combination of Koranic memorization and an excessive indulgence in internet pornography and suddenly recognize they'd been improperly neglecting religious praxis?

Hezbollah's agression seems significantly less foolhardy if you accept the thesis (becomming increasingly plausable) that its actions are ultimately of Iranian agency. The goal might be as simple as thrusting Israel into a wider conflict not only with its immediate neighbors but with the Islamic world at large -- most esp. Syria and Iran, both of which have considerable weaponry and a nearly inexhaustable supply of zealots. War with Israel would likely prove a zero-sum game, but that's exactly the sort of apocalyptic result Ahmadinejad's handlers most desire.

This is a theory that is even beginning to frighten other Arab states. The Sauds seem especially concerned.

I'm under the impression that Iran and Syria are more at the core of Hezbollah's actions than the people or government of Labanon.

It would seem that Israel would want some semblance of peace restored in Lebanon than use what they themselves or others would call disproportionate force.

I'm not seeing your logic there. If Israeli intelligence (common knowledge at this point, really) shows that the Lebanese government has been hijacked by Iran and Syria, which are then using Lebanon as a staging ground for attacks on Israeli soldiers and soil, why would Israel want "some semblance of peace restored" without first mitigating Hezbollah's grip? That Lebanon is being held hostage by nihilistic mullahs should not make Olmert less inclined to defend his border, but more so. A peace that places murderers on your doorstep is fairly unsatisfying, I should think.

Mesh, you seem to have failed to notice that historically Islamist states have not responded well to reciprocal aggression. It signals an unwelcome willingness to defend one's nation. This makes them angry.

St. Elmo Dad is right:

If Israel would learn how to respond with grace and humility to kidnappings and suicide bombings instead of getting all het up and going off half-cocked on punitive military missions, the Middle East might finally achieve the peace that has eluded it for so long. There'd probably be a lot less Jews in the region too, but who's counting?

Mesh, I see by your response that you're not seeing my logic, but I would appreciate questions rather than what appeared to be condescension.

I personally don't know the all of the why's behind the Lebanese shifts toward Hezbollah, but the Lebanese population is quite a mixture of faiths and people groups. Hijacked or not, the hold that Iran/Syria has on Lebanon isn't a united one and it's likely tenuous.

My comment about desiring peace (or some semblance thereof) is rooted in the knowledge that all rational nations want a peaceful border situation. I personally believe that Israel is rational and I was merely pointing that while their actions to secure relief from overt aggression are just, it seems apparent that they would also desire a more lasting peace with a neighboring country.

I was trying to get across in those two sentences was that their force will by necessity be "proportional." What I was evidently communicating poorly within them was that I cannot imagine Israel acting reckless in any military or political move while they use that force.

Dave, but what's the point of your last point? I don't mean to sound rude, but I fail to see it's relevance to the conversation.

Wow, relevance.

I've had conversations with others on the same topic but perhaps we've started with similar preconseptions and understandings - because those conversations were cogent and went some where.

To me, and others, my comments are relevent and not terribly original either. I'm tempted to try to explain them further, but I fear that your perceptions about what I'm saying are too distorted at this point.

We can talk through them later if you'd like.

My perceptions? Which ones? Stated where?

I'm sincerely asking what is the point, relating to either the content of the original blog post or a subsequent comment, of your assertion that "Israel's use of force will by necessity be proportional."

Like I offered earlier, if you’d actually like to sit down and talk through what I mean we can.

I'm not sure the dividing line between Israelis and "terrorists" is really much of a division right now. I do think though that the line has become increasingly blurred, & terrorism (not simply defending one's self or nation) is quickly becoming the lowest common denominator for both nations.

Regardless, it's a terrible existence for innocent people on both sides of the border, and, although I'm sure Jack Van Impe is having a field day with it, we have to pray for peace.

Josiah,

The NYT has an article re: disproportionate force today: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/world/middleeast/19israel.html?hp&ex=1153368000&en=b915aada25e0a0ce&ei=5094&partner=homepage. It offers all kinds of opportunities for fisking - for one thing, I'm glad to see the NYT dabble in the kind of corpse-for-corpse calculation that I'm sure they derided {and rightly} as crude, barbaric, atavistic etc. in the Vietnam War, & in an attempt at objectivity say that Israeli arguments about the fact that by hosting terrorists you invite violence against yourself, "leave Lebanese and Gazans cold." As if they'd ponder a bit and say, "I can see your point. It might be time to kick Muhammad out of the goat shed."

I like strawberries.