There is a wall-to-wall consensus in Israel that the
war against the Hezbollah in Lebanon is a just and moral war. Unfortunately
this consensus is based on selective and short-term memory, on an introvert
world view, and on double standards. This is not a just war. The use of force
is excessive and indiscriminate, and its ultimate aim is extortion. This does
not imply that Hezbollah has a moral case in this conflict; quite to the
contrary. But the fact that Hezbollah “initiated” this conflict by abducting Israeli
soldiers across an internationally recognized border does not even start to
shift the balance to Israel’s side of the scales of morality.
Let us start with some facts. In 1982 Israel invaded
Lebanon and occupied its Capital Beirut. In the course of this invasion, Israel
dropped thousands of tons of bombs on civilian population centers, killing and
maiming thousands of innocent civilians. Conservative estimates put the number
of Lebanese fatalities at around 14,000 (of which 5,000 civilian deaths were
reported in Beirut). Most of these fatalities had nothing to do with the PLO,
the alleged cause of this invasion. The occupation of parts of Lebanon lasted
another eighteen years. During operations “Accountability” (in 1993) and
“Grapes of Wrath” (in 1996) Israel’s mass bombardments of civilian targets
caused mass evacuations of Southern Lebanon, the estimated number of refugees
in each case exceeded 500,000 Lebanese. We do not have a reliable estimate of
the number of civilian fatalities in each of these incidents, but during the
“Grapes of Wrath” operation, Israeli shells hit a shelter, killing 103
civilians including many women and children. This was clearly a case of
collateral damage, but this does not help provide the operation a moral
foundation.
On July 28, 1988 Israeli Special Forces abducted
Sheikh Obeid, and on May 21, 1994 Israel kidnapped Mustafa Dirani, who had been
responsible for capturing the Israeli pilot Ron Arad. Israel held these and
other 20 Lebanese who were captured under undisclosed circumstances in prison
for prolonged periods without trial. They were held as human “bargaining
chips.” Apparently, abduction of Israelis for the purpose of prisoners’
exchange is morally reprehensible and militarily punishable when it is the
Hezbollah who does the abducting, but not if Israel is doing the very same
thing.
The Hezbollah has violated an internationally
recognized border in its attack on the Israeli patrol on June 12. That is
indisputable. What is less known, however, is that Israel has violated Lebanese
airspace by carrying out aerial reconnaissance missions virtually every day
since its withdrawal from Southern Lebanon six years ago. True, these aerial
overflights did not cause any Lebanese casualties, but a border violation is a
border violation. Here too, Israel does not hold a higher moral ground.
So much for moral history, now we can turn to an
analysis of the present conflict. What exactly is the difference between
Hezbollah’s launching Katyusha rockets at Israeli population centers and
Israel’s attacks of civilian centers in Beirut, Tyre, Sidon, and many villages
in Southern Lebanon? The Israeli argument that Hezbollah members are hiding
inside civilian population suggests metaphorically that the victim of gang rape
is guilty because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. So far, over
thirty Israeli civilians have been killed by Hezbollah’s rockets, compared to
nearly 400 Lebanese, virtually all of whom are civilians. More important,
Israeli attacks on Lebanese infrastructure—beyond accomplishing the
counterproductive objective of destroying the kind of Lebanon that is in
Israel’s interest to preserve—victimize most of Lebanon’s population. The
increased difficulty of hospitals and public services to operate are a direct
result of Israel’s strategy.
The stated objective of Israeli attacks on
infrastructure and civilian targets is getting the weak Lebanese government to
implement U.N. resolution 1559, which calls for disarmament of all militias in
Lebanon. This is an exercise in extortion no less than the abduction of Israeli
soldiers by Hezbollah. This strategy is an attempt to extract compliance from
the Lebanese government through systematic attacks on its citizen, but there is
no shred of morality in this action.
This war has an important aspect of propaganda, a
competition in self-victimization. Each side works hard to convince the
international community that it is more miserable than their opponent. As any
propaganda struggle, both the Israeli and Lebanese use of information is
selective, distorted, and self-righteous. If Israel wants to build its case on
the notion that the international community would buy its spoiled goods, let it
continue to delude itself. Israelis, however, owe it to themselves to face the
inconvenient truth (to borrow a phrase from Al Gore). Israel may win this
conflict militarily due to the overwhelming asymmetry in military power; it may
or may not accomplish some of its political objectives. Yet, Israel does not
hold any moral superiority, nor does it have any special status when it comes
to the battlefield of moral claims. Tragically, the moral battle is doomed to
end in an outcome where everyone embroiled in it emerges as a loser.
No comments:
Post a Comment