The terrible war in Lebanon has been discussed from all sorts of ethical and legal perspectives, but the simplest way of judging war is to look at its consequences.
After weeks of bloodshed, with the vast majority of victims being ordinary people (mostly in Lebanon thanks to the use of airstrikes as a weapon of terror, but with many killed and wounded in Israel as well) whose only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, it’s hard to believe that anyone could claim that any good consequences are going to come out of this for the people of either Israel or Lebanon (though of course this is precisely the claim being made not only by the belligerents but by their outside backers, from Bush on one side to the Iranians on the other). But as we’ve seen time and again, the logic of war, once started, is remorseless. However obviously wrong the initial decision to go to war, the consequences of ending it always seem almost worse, at least to those who have to admit that the death and destruction they have wrought has been pointless.
And all this was not only predictable, but predicted by nearly everyone who looked at the situation objectively.
Whether all this is put in terms of just war, consequentialism or some other way of thinking about things, a central problem is that the parties act as judges in their own cases, and, at times when war is brewing, are bad judges even of their own interests, let alone of the justice of their claims or the effect on others.
At best, war is doing evil that good may come, and most of the time the indirect consequences are also evil. The great majority of wars, revolutions and insurgencies have done more harm than good, and in most cases, everyone involved has been worse off than if they had made peace on the basis of the status quo ante at the earliest opportunity. This is obvious as a general proposition (the fact that the same handful of exceptions is quoted over and over again only goes to sharpen the point). But everyone thinking of making war sees themselves as one of the exceptions.
John Quiggin 
We expect Hezbollah idiots to be irrational, but Israel is not supposed to be like that. However, it’s hard to recall any instance when this sort of thing on their part has led to an improved situation. They supported the Iraq invasion. Their analysis is as poor as anyone’s.
All you say is inarguably rational and completely true. Problem is, that those making the decisions to wage war and those who we ‘follow ‘ (into a dark future) are the antithesis of these two things, ie. completely irrational and influenced primarily by bullshit of their own making. Viewed from afar, what other explanation could there be?
“The more I learn about humans, the more l like dogs.”
I dunno, if Israel manages to drag syria into it, they can set back Assad’s ambitions for a few more years.
That’s pretty much the level of discourse in the region isn’t it? I’m pretty sure Israelis don’t give a shit about any Lebanese, while their civilian losses are by their standards trivial.
It’s hard to think about Israel and the mid-east for very long without getting terribly depressed.
Of course I agree with what JQ is saying here. However it occurs to me that peace as a strategy does not create any form of Nash equilibrium effect. If your opponents strategy is peace then adopting a war strategy might seem quite rewarding. Even more so when you do it from the comfort of a remote bunker using other peoples money. And if your opponents strategy is war then what do you have to gain from a strategy of peace?
If the other guy is dead set on turning the other cheek then playing face slap could even be amusing. The only winning strategy seems to be tit for tat. And even then it may be a hollow victory.
Israel is trying to goad the US into doing something about Iran (whom they have good reason to worry about), by drawing the Iranians into the overtly atacking Israel in support of Hizbollah. I don’t think that the Iranians are that stupid, or the US (they are way to exposed in the Gulf and in Iraq), and neither are Hizbollah, who while Iranian backed are not puppets. I think the Israeli leadership is caught up in a sort of temporary hysterical group-think, but they’ll come to their senses soon. The solution to Iran in another revolution. Middling odds.
-p
I agree too, but I’ll play devil’s advocate for Israel. A defender would say you’re fudging the analysis by applying it to ‘everyone thinking of making war’ and those who make ‘the initial decision to go to war’. You wouldn’t characterise the Allies in World War II in these terms: someone else ‘made’ war or ‘went’ to war; they were merely defending themselves. So the real problem is where to draw the line between self defense and belligerence, especially when defence takes the form of teaching the enemy a good lesson. As for the status quo ante, isn’t the whole problem in Palestine that there is no such thing?
Terje,
Why the need for some one size fits all mechanical rule. It’s not (I hope) how you run other aspects of your life.
War is only objective for the disinterested observer
For those who are having indiscriminate and/or targeted rockets land in their village, town, house, kibbutz etc, it is very very subjective.
The people of Israel are not in a position to care too much for the welfare of civilians in neighboring countries. Concern for the lives of others is a luxury which does not apply until one’s own survival is guaranteed.
War = people get killed. It is an obscenity.
It is a non-sequitor to suggest that the war is bad because innocent people died. The relevant consequences by which to judge the war must include the impact (if any) that it will have on Hez, Lebannon, Iran etc.
If Hez is committed to war against Israel, then it makes sense for Israel to be at war against Hez.
It sounds right John but I still wonder what you expect a country like Israel to do when attacked. To roll over and put up with it on the grounds that to retaliate will cause a loss of innocent life? Hezbollah has been firing 100 missiles per day into Israel and was obviously prepared for war. The bunkers and so that they have dug confirm this.
War should be a last resort. The deaths in Qana and elsewhere were horrific – no qualification – to see young kids killed as a result of an adult squabble is terrible. But this is not to say that Israel was not justified in retaliating – they had little choice when a terrorist group neighbouring country declared war on them.
Nicholas,
I was asking questions and thinking aloud, not making rules. What do you think about the issue of war?
Regards,
Terje.
OK Harry Clarke, I will bite.
Most would probably not dispute Israel’s right to retaliate against Hezbollah.
However, the right to self-defence does not include the right to:
1) Kill innocent civilians nowhere near Hezbollah positions; or
2) Destroy civilian infrastructure, just because “terrorists can use it”; or
3) Destroy the capability of the Lebanese army.
In particular, the peculiar logic peddled by Israel in relation to 2) above, that airports, roads, power plants, apartment blocks, mosques are all legit targets because “the terrorists can use it” is absurd. Taken to its logical conclusion, hospitals, dams, police stations etc are all legit targets, because they can be used by terrorists. Heck, why not kill all Lebanese, because then you can be sure to eliminate Hezbollah!
And for that matter, would you also agree that by your logic, the Palestinians have the right to violently retaliate against the Israelis because a “neighbouring country declared war on them” in 1967?
Of course, this is all getting off the main topic which is that in many wars, the combatants appear myopic about the consequences and the costs invoilved.
Correction on my last: the Israelis HAVE now bombed a hospital in Baalbek, presumably because it is near a Hezbollah stronghold.
Oh well, I guess those darn civilians should have known better than to let themselves be carried into that particular hospital
It’s hard not to draw the conclusion that there’s a significant element of racism in the Israeli thinking about how it can treat it’s neighbours (and Arabs with Israeli citizenship). Lower forms of life, “untermensch”, etc. I have read some interesting pieces in Ha’aretz over the years talking about this – as usual the only safe place to question Israeli orthodoxy is Israel itself. As the influence of the post-war generation of European jews diminishes (not to mention the right-wing pre-war gangs already causing mayhem in Palastine), it will be interesting to see how things change in the country.
At some time in the future as a result of the plotting of another country East Timor starts sending rockets into Darwin on the basis that Australia stole their petroleum assets.
What do you advise the Australian Government to do?
Chris C you are raising a whole set of issues that I didn’t raise – no-one I know would disagree with any of your points (i)-(iii). This is high school debating technique.
You say you will ‘bite’ – I wasn’t intending to be provocative (and it is a again a dishonest debating technique on your part to suggest I was) but just to express my honest view.
You are again being ridiculous when you say Israel could kill all Lebanese to eliminate the problem. Israel has said they value Lebanon as a neighbour – they just don’t want terrorists in Hezbollah capricously attacking them. I know of no evidence that Israel seeks to kill civilians – even in Qana missiles were being fired at them from a site adjacent to the bombed apartment building. The evil here is Hezbollah – launching missile strikes from civilian areas does amount to using children as a human shield. Hezbollah are committing crimes against humanity and all the misdirected horror from the Arab world should not allow this to be forgotton. How people of any race or religion or political viewpoint can sacrifice their own children for a pointless war – they cannot win it and even if they did look at the cost – is beyond me.
I agree with John’s point about myopia and the disastrous consequences of war – I just don’t think it is a useful guide to whether Israel should react or not.
The truly depressing thing about this war is that it won’t actually solve anything. This is not true of all wars. Britain went to war with Argentina when Argentina invaded the Falklands. Lots of people got killed, but the long term outcome was a good one. The Argentinians went home, haven’t come back and the people of the Falklands have beein living in peace ever since.
But nothing of any lasting good will come of what is happening in Lebanon. At best, Hezbollah may pull back for a while, but they will be back. The Paelstinians aren’t going anywhere, and neither are the advocates of Greater Israel. Everything that is being said about the Middle East now was being said 15, 30, 45 years ago. Nothing of substance ever changes. It’s permanent war punctuated by brief periods of false optimism. We had the Camp David Accords in the 1970s; we had the Oslo Agreement in the 1990s. They achieved nothing, and the major players behind the agreements, Sadat and Rabin, got assassinated for the troubles. There’s not a lot of incentive for rational middle east leaders to make peace when trying to do so agitates fanatics who are supposed to be on their side to try to kill them.
We’ll may have some other hokum agreement in 10 years or so. But the war will roll on and on and on.
it appears Israel have forgotten the lesson of the Maccabees let alone Vietnam.
you can’t wage war on guerrillas. If you do you merely kill a lot of civilians.
This is happening now.
The ONLY way of guaranteeing no rockets will reach Israel is to essentially demolish everything in the area.
In the mean time Hezbollah gain an undeserved reputation for standing up to Israel and terrorist groups gain more recruits.
Before this happened Lebanon’s Government was going reasonably well with Hezbollah on the periphery. now no-one wants to criticise them and Syria’s influence has increased!
Thats easy, taust.
Engage in an indiscriminate and maximal bombing campaign, in East Timor, destroying anything that may be used by terrorists – hospitals, power plants, water storage. All the while, making sure that the Aussie Defence Force remains firmly on the wrong side of the Geneva conventions, humanitarian law and basic humanity – remember, we are fighting terrorists here, the rules have changed.
When the Red Cross or ambulances try to rush aid into Dili, or civilians attempt to flee, bomb them too – they should have known better than to be in the vicinity of terrorists.
Remember, we have the right to self-defence – one Australian death is too many.
Chris, don’t foget teh missile strikes against clearly marked ambulances, and the strikes on UN compounds.
Hezbollah are commonly (by most people in the world) considered a resistance movement against the constant incursions by Israel into Lebanon. They have fairly defined and limited aims, they’re not into the total overthrow of Israel (well they are, but it’s not their goal or main policy). A lot of people prefer to keep a nice level of ignorance regarding the root causes of these problems, avoid the messy argumetns about what Israel was up to in the 80s and 90s in Lebanon.
“I know of no evidence that Israel seeks to kill civilians”
I can’t even comment on this.
No Harry – YOU are being disingenuous.
You couch Israels dilemma as being:
1) to act as they have done; OR
2) To roll over and put up with it on the grounds that to retaliate will cause a loss of innocent life.
I am saying that that there is a 3rd way (apologies to Tony Blair) between these two.
That is – to respond in a way proportionate to the threat.
If Israel had restricted its retaliation to legitimate military targets in Hezbollah-held areas, I would not have opposed it.
If that means that Hezbollah can still fire off some rockets because they are hiding behind civilian targets, well thats the price civilized nations pay when they are provoked into war.
Lets face it – however much Hezbollah wants to destroy Israel, it does not have the capability to kill more than a couple of people in hundreds of rocket strikes.
If Hezbollahs capability to kill Israelis or cause damage did increase significantly, then again I would support Israels right to escalate accordingly, even if this did increase the civilian death toll.
But only the most ardent apologist could defend Israel’s retaliation.
It is analogous to if someone stole my car, then I am justified in burning down all the houses in the thief’s street, with occupants inside, and killing his whole family.
I’d like to pick up on a comment of Bring Back EP at LP. He mentions that Hezbollah gains a reputation for standing up to Israel. To me this is an indicator of what is going wrong in the Arab world. The perception that by killing Israelis whilst having the environment in which you operate destroyed and calling that a victory is totally irrational. To say that the more civilians are killed the more it proves the point of Israelis being somehow inhumane whilst ignoring the provocations and the good faith explanations given for the tragic consequences appears to me to reveal a desire to continue the conflict with no endpoint in sight and a privileging of ideology over human life.
What is the solution? I don’t think there is one at this stage, just an end to the chronic flare-up.
Both sides should heed the lesson from game theory that a tit for tat response is the best way to keep conflicts under control.
Israel was quite open in stating that its response to the capture of two of its soldiers would be far from proportional. It believed that an over response was the best solution and has certainly carried through with that.
Clearly it has not worked. Its bombing campaign resulted in rocket attacks and now Israel is at a bit of a loss. To continue with its strategy of a massive response requires further escalation, but the costs of that would be too high. This has left it scrambling to acheive a solution that is worse than where it started from.
Tit for tat can be a stable solution that results from the elimination of particpants that try alternate strategies which don’t work. With a bit of luck both sides will have learnt some lessons from this, or at least the leaders who don’t believe in tit for tat will be replaced when their failure become obvious.
BTW Harry, your attitude is exactly why these conflicts continue.
I have supported Israel’s right to retaliate against Hezbollah’s provocation, but you are particularly one-eyed when you single out Hezbollah as “evil”, while ignoring the gorilla in the room – Israel’s completely disprportionate and barbaric response.
As the Lebanese delgate to the UN said: “once mistakes become a pattern of behaviour, they deserve another name – a crime”.
And frankly, if you see no evidence that Israel seeks to kill civilians, well, you obviously have missed all the video footage of bombed-out convoys of civilian vehicles and apartment buildings in Lebanon – of course, Im sure they were all terrorists. Thats what will get you to sleep at night.
BTW, you have not responded to my question about the Palestinians right to retaliate against Israeli aggression?
It’s worthy of some note in this context that the Party of God’s initial raid was by no means the unprovoked out of the blue event the Australian media portrays. Nasrallah has been threatening such an operation for some time unless Israel returns the Lebanese hostages (or prisoners if you prefer) it continues to hold. These individuals were supposed to have been exchanged for an Israeli businessman and the remains of some dead Israeli soldiers some years back, but Sharon reneged on part of the deal at the last minute. The Hezbollah raid was, btw, dubbed “Operation Truthful Promise”. See http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/nasrallah_game
Meanwhile, those supporting the Israeli onslaught should in all conscience be urging India to attack Pakistan in retaliation for the recent train bombing atrocities. Fortunately, wisdom seems to prevail in New Delhi. Would that it did in Tel Aviv.
On a slightly-related, but slightly-different topic, America’s and Israel’s desire for absolute security unfortunately overlooks the fact that security is always a relative concept, so the more they try to shore up their own, the more they reduce other countries’.
It is also unfortunately very reminiscent of the Kaiser’s desire for the same in the early 20th C. And we all know how that turned out.
From Wikipedia-
“At 9:05 AM local time (06:05 CET), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a Katyusha rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and villages of northern Israel, injuring at least 8 Israelis[18]. Afterwards, a ground contingent of Hezbollah militants attacked two Israeli armored Humvees on a routine patrol along the Israel-Lebanon border near the Israeli village of Zar’it with anti-tank rockets, capturing two Israeli soldiers, and killing eight.[19] According to the Lebanese police force and Hezbollah, the Israeli soldiers were attacked and captured on the Lebanese side of the border on 12 July during a mission to infiltrate the Lebanese town of Ayta al-Sha`b,[20] although remains of the Humvees were found in Israel. [21]�
Recall this was essentially the challenge(actually a clear act of war) of an Iranian backed Hesbollah mini-state within a state that faced Israel. Thousands of rockets and 6 years of Iranian and Syrian sponsored military bunkers and fortifications deliberately interspersed among the southern Lebanese population from which Hesbollah could continue to deliver ‘death by a thousand cuts’, so well favoured by the followers of Islam. IMO Israel’s response was the only logical one. Make those who stand with Hesbollah understand that is a recipe for the same fate Hesbollah wants to inflict on Israel. You stand with them as rulers of the rubble like Hamas. The West more generally faces the same challenge from Iran seeking the cover of a nuclear umbrella to advance its stated Islamist goals. I put it to those assembled here, that unless you can rationally suggest any other believable strategy to overcome the Islamist’s ‘death by a thousand cuts’ strategy, we are going to total war with Islam and the sooner the better, given Iran’s clear nuclear intentions and vitriol. Essentially I stand with Israel, because I see nothing whatsoever in Islam for me and I need all the allies I can muster for this clash of civilisations that has now begun. I’m all ears if you have a believable strategy to turn things around, but spare me the crying over spilt milk in the past. We have to deal with the here and now.
“Essentially I stand with Israel, because I see nothing whatsoever in Islam for me and I need all the allies I can muster for this clash of civilisations that has now begun.”
or this
Hey Observa, remind us why Hizbollah started in the first place again?
Can’t argue with your logic observa. I mean Israel did the same thing back in 1982 and that turned out brilliantly.
Keep it up. God this whole conflict must feel great. “clear act of war”, “clash of civiliasations”, “death by a thousand cuts”, “total war … and the sooner the better”. Isn’t great to always have RIGHT on your side?
You should be a speech writer for Nasrallah, sorry I mean Olmert. Actually why not both?
Anyway don’t let up on that agit-prop. You never know when those wimpy realists might get back in control.
“It seems to me the inescapable lesson of the current conflict is a depressing one for Israel and the United States. It ain’t about land. In the 1990s, we were repeatedly told that Israel’s problems could be solved via a geopolitical swap-meet. Everyone get together in back-slapping fellowship and trade land and, abracadabra, we’d have peace. It turns out, in Israel’s case, this is nonsense. Hezbollah doesn’t want land-for-peace, it wants genocide for peace…. Of course, this generalization doesn’t apply to every Arab talking head and potentate. But as far as the militants with the guns and the hearts and minds go, that’s the reality. Perhaps there are deal-makers even among the Iranians, but the fact is Hezbollah means what it says and it’s stock is going up, not down. That means all of the 1990s illusions about how the Arab-Israeli (now more of a Muslim-Israeli) conflict could be solved through negotiations have been exploded.”
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2006/07/end-of-land-for-peace.html
So Observa, you see Israel’s response to this border incursion as a proportionate and justified response?
I presume that you also see the Palestinian’s response to Israeli incursion in the same terms?
The notion that Israeli has the right to destroy a neighouring state’s infrastructre to rescue two prisoner of war is so bizarre,that I think only the most ardent zionists would advance that view.
Of course that is in line with the fact that in Gaza and the west Bank Israeli often drops massive bomb loads onto civilian areas,especially favouring refugee camps.Compassion is not an Isreali vitue it seems!
As an Israeli general said recently “nowhere in Lebanon is safe”. Israel no longer even bothers to conceal it violent aims.
As Robert Fisk has pointed out several times,this is not to first catastrophic event in Lebanon,brought about by Israeli agression. Paul Krugman said today in the New York Times,that Olmert seems to be possesed by the mad spirit of Rumsfeld.
Of course this is the entree to the main meal,which is to fabricate some event,..not too hard I guess,with US assistance…which will be used to justify attacks on Syria and Iran.
Israeli policy seems to have the view that only “puppet governments” like that of Jordan are permissible in the Arab World..all others have to be destroyed. Current evidence suggests that in Jordan and Egypt the regimes would be swept away by an enraged public who would vote for Islamists rather than the present regimes ,if a fair election was permitted.
Iran however will prove to be a big problem,because there is no doubt that will use the oil weapon. Just by ceasing oil production they could send the price of oil soaring causing great problems for the world economy.
If petrol triples in price after such an action,it will test the loyalty of the US voters to follow policies designed in Tel Aviv.
The effect on all economies would be swift and deadly…even John Howard , a most slavisly follow of the US/Israeli policies ,admitted this morning that the price of oil is his principal worry,as well it should be.
In fact observa, let me go further and say that your conclusion seems completely flawed.
The only sensible conclusion to draw from the history of Israel’s relations with the Palestinians is that the Israelis have been all the while talking peace while increasing settlements and undermining a two state solution in the pursuit of a Greater Israel.
Simultaneously, Israel has pursued a largely successful propaganda campaign to convince the world that the Palestinians have been the obstacles to peace – it has obviously worked on you. EG the canard that Arafat was offered 95% of what he wanted at Taba. This myth has been quietly exploded by every independent observer that has come forward, not that you would know about it.
The fact is that both sides have been characterised by intransigence on a number of issues, including the occupation, Jerusalem, and the right of return.
However, the monopoly of force involved along with the cowardly acquiesence of the world means that the Israelis can just keep revising down their “offer”.
It is from this continued injustice that the Muslim world’s increasing hatred of Israel is derived, not some genocidal tendency.
If Israel was SO committed to Oslo, why did it keep building settlements the whole time?
If Israel was not interested in annexation previously, why did Olmert sell his “convergence” policy as requiring great sacrifices? Unless Israel had its heart set on annexation, what “sacrifices” was he referring to?
If Israel (and the US) are so interested in democracy in the Arab world, why has the entire Palestinian Parliament been locked up, and on what authority? And why does the US not actively push for democracy (eg. by invasion) in Saudi, Egypt and the Gulf States?
BTW, my proposed solution is the same as with any dispute between intransigent parties – a solution must be imposed from without.
But the US would be loathe to impose anything on its bosom buddy.
Harry Clarke. You said:
How people of any race or religion or political viewpoint can sacrifice their own children for a pointless war – they cannot win it and even if they did look at the cost – is beyond me.
I’m not an expert in military strategy, but Israel did exactly that – they sacrificed their own people by refusing to send troops in. Air strikes didn’t stop rocket attacks; and Israeli civilians were killed. Still Israeli soldiers were too precious to be send in. It’s disconcerning.
Like Israelis nowadays, I’m no better qualified than the rest of you at analysing the moral ambiguities here, but one thing I’ve come to realize- Like them, we’d better be good at war. Iran also has to consider that seriously now
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH02Ak03.html
It’s big Hezbollah threat stick to beat Israel and ultimately the West with at the nuclear negotiating table, is fast disappearing in Lebanon right now. Check and your move mullahs….!
Nevertheless, I’m still listening out for any believable alternative strategy proposals here. (Please, no hungry croc strategy- feed em Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Spain,…)
This thread illustrates the reasons why I find talk about rights and justification unhelpful in this context.
The actions of the Israeli government have caused disastrous damage in Lebanon, while producing bad consequences for Israel in both the short and long term. All the talk about justification in the world doesn’t change this fact.
Hezbollah’s success in provoking this reaction may provide gains for its political leaders duin the short run (if they survive). But clearly the consequences of their actions are evil, and they must be judged the same way.
You can see where Iran is coming from now. Calling all Muslims…..
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-08-01T121056Z_01_L01894728_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-IRAN-ARMS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
observa,
The similarity between you and those you are scared of is hilarious.
“Calling all crusaders!!”
“It turns out, in Israel’s case, this is nonsense. Israel doesn’t want peace-for-land, it wants genocide for land….”
It is also hilarious, but tragic, that a true “Observer” would see that the ones clamouring loudest for war are not Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria, but the US, UK, Israel and Australia.
Chris C the Israelis didn’t bomb the hospital, they popped in and picked up 5 Hizbollah commanders who were lurking there. Who told them I wonder.
And Nasrallah was doing much more than verbalising threats. He received delivery in March 2006 of 12,000 improved katyusha rockets by truck convoy from Syria. The Lebanese government, with full knowledge of the load, and whom it was for provided transit papers, so even though the Lebanese Army stopped them, they had to let them go on. Kofi Annan knew, he reported it briefly in his April report. But importantly Israel knew.
Interestingly there seems to be more opposition to Nasrallah’s stupid unilateral declaration of war (he didn’t tell the other leaders in Hizbollah either) in Hizbollah than from those so called democratic politicians of Lebanon. Though Wahid Jumblatt is putting his life on the line. Nasrallah has advised those who oppose us will die when we beat Israel.
There is the argument that if Israel can not remove a threat they should sit and take the damage. But maybe all Israel can do is stick their finger in the dyke when the danger gets too great. In their judgement the outcome for them is a gain, however temporary.
Pr Q says:
This is a splendid justification for the conservative philosophy of social change ie make it gradual and peaceful. Dont rock the boat, if it aint broke dont fix it, when you are on a good thing stick to it etc.
I tend to agree with Pr Q’s asessment. The history of warfare shows that very few wars and revolutions make an unambiguous contribution to human progress. Even the good wars, such as the US Civil War and WWII, were monstrous.
We should never embark on utopian ventures to make the world over. Except perhaps in technology where the sci-tech method is designed to de-bug in advance any problems with new gadgets. Even then we should be wary of technological constructivism that undermines “ethico-logical” conservatism.
jquiggin Says: August 2nd, 2006 at 3:52 pm
I hate ME political culture. There are no good parties there, only greater evils waiting to happen.
The current invasion will probably make things worse for ISR state oand the Jewish people. But this is not how they see things. I think Israeli policy makers, and people, dont think they have anything to lose by killing neighbouring Arabs. Making nice has got them no where.
They have tried everything, withdrawing from borders, promoting democracy, shuttle diplomacy. But nothing works and everything gets worse over time.
This is because the ME harbours a sick political culture which can never really accomodate Jewish state in its midst. The Israelis have simply caught the sickness and are re-infecting the region using hi-tech weapons as illness delivery systems.
Still this invasion will only make things worse as every aggressive action in the ME makes things worse. Throwing a spanner into the works is very bad idea when the works consist of nothing much else other than fouled spanners.
The Israelis should turn their homeland into a neo-Crusader fortress and retire behind its walls. They should not venture out into the region nor should they let aliens venture into their land.
Sovereignty is to the polity as property is to the personality as membranes are to the organism. Invading borders is bound to generate an adverse reaction. Trying to re-organise those within those borders is a recipe for massive antipathetic immuno response.
Border-control does not cure human ills. It contains them, which is the best we can hope for in these dark times.
Jack,
The problem with your preferred option “[t]he Israelis should turn their homeland into a neo-Crusader fortress and retire behind its walls. They should not venture out into the region nor should they let aliens venture into their land…” is that the bulk of their neighbours (correctly) do not identify the land in question as the property of the people currently living there and, also correctly, their leaders do not like to see a free, prosperous democracy in their midst. It reminds them, and their people, too much of their own failings.
They therefore have every incentive to attack and very little incentive to accept the status quo however high the wall is.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:35 pm August 2nd, 2006 at 7:35 pm
The Jews had alot of nerve starting this fight. But the Arabs dont have the brains to know when they are beat.
Neither party is likely to give way. THe Jews will not be a-wandering anytime soon. And the Arabs are not exactly softening their hearts after the latest round of rounds. So when an immovable object meets an irresistable force we can expect fireworks.
Some kind of apocalyptic showdown, probably involving nucleo- and bio-weapons.
Its no accident that Armageddon is in the ME.
Instead of Armageddon, how about the festival of Lailat al Miraj, 22 August, which commemorates the ascension of the Prophet Mohammed into heaven from the al-Aksa mosque in Jerusalem. Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr Nasrallah (who shares Mr. Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic vision), are promising Israel a big and nasty surprise very soon. And August 22 is when they have advised they will reply to the UN.
So the apocalyptic showdown, on the 22nd?
Ros, are you suggesting the date for the first Iranian/jihadist/mahdiviat nuclear attack may be on 22 August?
MarkL
Canberra
Chris C (who supports untrammelled use of force by Australia in defending Australian interests)
also says (less sarcastically one hopes)
‘—BTW, my proposed solution is the same as with any dispute between intransigent parties – a solution must be imposed from without.—-‘
Who is to impose the solution and how is it to be imposed ?
Is force to be used?
If force is to be used how many civilian lives lost is an acceptable number?
Taust,
Failing the UN enforcing its own resolutions in relation to the borders between Israel and Palestine, the US should smash both their heads (figuratively) together and delineate the border.
If Israel refused to accept it, the US should cut all aid and push for global sanctions (a’la South Africa). If this did not work, it should enforce the UN resolutions by force as it has whenever an Arab country contravenes UN sanctions.
If the Palestinians refused to accept the borders, then Israel would have the full support of the US, UN and global community in defending its sovereignty – conducting itself in accordance with the Geneva conventions of course.
Even as I type this I realise what a pipe dream this sounds, particularly given how in thrall most recent US administrations have been to Israel, but if the right leaders were in place, it could happen – remember 50 years ago this year, Eisenhower told Israel to get stuffed. Yitzhak Rabin or even Ariel Sharon would probably have gone along, and Haniyeh is more pragmatic than the oft-quoted Hamas charter suggests.
So to answer your questions, force would most likely not even need to be used, hence no need to talk about civilian casualties.
Without going into Prof. Quiggin’s comment that “The great majority of wars, revolutions and insurgencies have done more harm than good…”, I might recommend that he and other economists anxious particularly about the economic effects of conflict could consider the work of Economists for Peace and Security (website here ). They might even wish to join.