| |
|
Please pardon the insanely long post; I don't want to leave MacDara hanging. I also don't want to oversimplify, so...
"There are two sides to that: the intent, and the result. The intent, I agree with you, is very different. But the result -- innocent people dying -- is the same. So in respect to the latter, I stand by my opinion that wilfully ignoring the actions of Hezbollah terrorists is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty (if that is being done, which is the impression that I got)."
Regarding intent versus result, I think you have in mind an inverted version of the equation I'm thinking of. It seems to me that both varieties of terrorism consistently espouse rather optimistic and sometimes even idealistic intentions. The Israelis, for example, conceptualize their activities as a staunch defense of their to right to exist as a people. The Palestinians and their advocates conceptualize their activities in terms of resisting a colonizing power and they legitimize attacks on civilians under the flag of civil complicity. I think the issue is an ancient one -- a question of whether the ends justify the means. Those who commit acts of terror clearly seem to think so. The issue which I believe results in a difference of opinion regarding the qualification of intellectual dishonesty in response to an omission on the topic of the crimes of Hezbollah is one of emphasis. From my perspective, Israel was founded when a colonial occupying power came to an agreement with sympathetic powers (i.e., the UN, and earlier the League of Nations) to deliver "ownership" of an occupied land to a third party -- the founders of the state of Israel -- partially as restitution for crimes committed against Jewish peoples throughout Europe. I think the seed of intense discontent that existed at the genesis of this affair should be clear -- sourcing largely from the total disregard for the rights and opinions of the indigenous Palestinians. It's obvious to Westerners that the UN had the right to assign this land as they pleased but it's not at all clear to those who lived there to begin with. The Palestinians had achieved an uneasy peace with their British occupiers and the new occupiers were arguably quite a bit less agreeable. I quote David Ben-Gurion:
"We do not recognize the right of the [Palestinian] Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders."
"The [Palestinian] Arabs have no right to the Jordan river, and no right to prevent the construction of a power plant [by a Jewish concern]. They have a right only to that which they have created and to their homes."
(Shabtai Teveth, p. 38)
I know the above seems a bit tangential, but here's how I relate it: the group Hamas ostensibly represents have undeniably received the short end of this very sharp stick. Hezbollah came about in response to unprovoked violence on the part of Israel (note: one might argue that Israel was provoked by the PLO, but Israel bombed Lebanon rather indiscriminately). It is common sense to me that in situations like this, the party with vastly inferior military might is given to turn most desperately towards the tools of asymmetric warfare. It is equally obvious to me that the party with disproportionally greater might and access to resources (political, economic, etc) bears greater responsibility (queue cliches, "with great power comes great responsibility..") Given these understandings, it seems superfluous to me to address the crimes of Hezbollah or Hamas: Of course groups like Hezbollah and Hamas exist, of course attacking civilians is wrong. The question is, what grievance created Hezbollah?
This doesn't mean that I believe the "underdog" bears no responsibility for resorting to atrocity. It simply means the fellow with the largest stick bears more responsibility, and perhaps more importantly, has the greater power to change the status quo. The crimes of Palestinian terrorists and their supporters weigh substantially less in my mind when compared to the might and power of the state of Israel and the harms it has inflicted. The state of Israel, simply put, has all the cards. What they choose to do with those cards is of greater importance and is more vulnerable to discussion and debate. The state of Israel will care if there is massive outrage on the part of Israeli civilians who won't stand for what their government is doing. There is no state of Palestine. The Palestinian terrorists and their supporters are powerless outside of their ability to harass Israel and will continue to do what it is they do until popular support for their cause is eroded. Popular support won't wane until the grievances that give rise to the cause are addressed. Condemning Hezbollah, then, is similarly useless. All that one can do is punish individual terrorists for violating international law, but one has little hope of rounding them up if there is no sympathetic state of which the terrorists are constituents to perform the work. As long as Israel behaves in this way, there will be no sympathetic state. Most of the Middle East feels solidarity as regards the Palestinian struggle and I doubt the strikes on Lebanon are any more popular.
"This isn't exactly representative of my position, just to make it clear. I don't believe that stateless terrorism is ever more severe than state terrorism, but I do believe that the concept of terrorism in and of itself is deplorable, whether committed by a state or a stateless entity. I don't think that's a dangerous position to take, because I'm quite aware of the great terror that states often commit and, pretty must just by 'virtue' of being a state, get away with."
I appreciate your clarification, and in particular your having made clear that you understand some of the mechanics of state terror. I agree that terrorism -- and in particular attacking unarmed civilians -- is deplorable.
"In hindsight, I could have chosen better words, so I apologise both to you and to Flyboy if I came across as needlessly accusatory. Yet my point above still stands."
If your point is essentially that "terrorism is bad", I don't think that was ever in dispute. However, if your point was that Hezbollah's crimes are on scale with Israel's and therefore one cannot honestly condemn Israel without first condemning Hezbollah, I believe I've shown that things are not so simple. Regarding your apology; that's gracious of you, though I don't feel that you owe me an apology.
"I wrote that in reaction to my perception of being seen by you and/or others of taking a position in defence of Israel's actions. If it came across as confusing, again my apologies, but I think it should make sense taken in the context of everything I've written, here included."
I found it confusing, but that's likely my fault.
"If this is supposed to be a forum about debate, then I do think it was fair to assume (though I admit I think less so now) that Flyboy was acting in bad faith by only presenting the 'boo Israel' side of the story, and to state my objection to it. As for the tone of my response, see above."
I can see where you're coming from though I obviously see things a bit differently.
"Regarding the second half of your statement, I always have a problem with casualty figures such as the ones cited. They rub me up the wrong way in the same manner as the term 'collateral damage' does, reducing people's lives to mere numbers. Nobody deserves to die in this way. Put yourself into the shoes of someone who's lost a loved one -- one horror is a bad as one hundred. (Yes, I can see it might be hypocritical of me to say something this after professing my disinterest, but I think the experience of the people on the ground on all sides of this conflict can often be ignored when the big geopolitical issues are discussed. Call me politically disinterested, but humane.)"
Certainly a valid point, and casualty figures can be deceptive, I'll admit. I do still hold that in this case the loss of life, and in particular civilian life, has been quite off balance throughout the affair. I believe it's worthwhile to cite these figures because the mainstream perspective in "the West" usually disregards these facts entirely. They prefer to focus on the shock value of Palestinian atrocity and frame each new incident as random and unrelated to Israeli behaviour.
"That is my point, and I'm sticking to it, but I'm not certain that you fully understand my position here. Israel should be rightly condemned and censured for its massively disproportionate military actions against its neighbours, but that does not exclude Hezbollah and other paramilitary organizations active in the region from similar criticism -- and I think it colours the issue to concentrate on one and leave out the other if the actions of both are clearly destroying lives in a similar, even if not equitable, fashion."
You have a point, though I do not believe Flyboy's stance on the matter was disengenuous. Hezbollah should be condemned for their indiscriminate attacks on areas populated by civilians, just as Israel should be. The problem from my standpoint is that Hezbollah has been thoroughly criticized while critics of Israel are often silenced or muted, so Israel not only inflicts the greater toll but also hears the more mild criticism.
"To conclude this, I completely identify with Tabitha:
I appreciate tthat feelings run high on this subject (and believe me, I find this quite a tricky subject to discuss without antagonising people with whom I disagree but nonetheless wish to converse)
I'm not always the most articulate of souls when it comes to such complex issues, so forgive me if I've misrepresented anyone or failed to explain myself as clearly as I'd hope."
I appreciate your having followed through with this exchange and I think you have clarified yourself effectively. |
|
|
