That's the title of a song that Mark Knopfler wrote in the 80's about the IDF. It's just as relevant today as it has been for the last 50 years. The current conflict in Lebanon is just another incidence of what the terrible conflict has done to the region in the last half century. But you already know what I think about that.
Isreal's baptism of fire has led them here, and the here and the now is what I want to talk about. First of all, Israel did not start this conflict. As before, they were attacked. If armed forces cross into your country and kill and capture your soldiers, that is an act of war. No question. The onus of the conflict in on Hezbollah, and Israel has every right to defend itself. However, two questions whose answers are a little less clear obviously spring from this.
The first concerns the fact that Hezbollah is a distinct entity from the moderate Lebanese government. This is a bit of an issue, as essentially Israel is invading a blameless country. That is a fair point, but in my view, Israel simply had no choice. The collateral damage is a big problem (more on this in a bit), but Hezbollah bases out of Lebanon and the government is unable to do anything about it.
The second question that logically comes out of that line of reasoning is the issue of a proportional response. This is one of the issues that I am most conflicted about so I will go into some detail. The conflict started with the deaths of several Israeli soldiers and the capture of 2. This, although a major coup for Hezbollah, probably did not justify a full-scale attack. However, that is not neccesarily the whole story. In fact, there is a West Wing episode about this exact situation. The key is, Hezbollah certainly knew that Israel would have to retaliate for the loss of their soldiers. They certainly expected the IDF to attack some of their positions. They decided that this was an acceptable risk and carried out their operation anyway. This causes a problem, because Israel's stated goal of the retaliation, as it should be, was to secure the return of their captured soldiers and to deter further aggression by Hezbollah. Responding proportionally, as several international authorities have suggested, would have done absolutely nothing to deter further aggression, as that is exactly what Hezbollah was expecting. In order to actually provide an effective deterrent against future aggression, the response has to be such that it is not in Hezbollah's rational interest to attack Israel. In short, it has to be an overwhelming response.
I therefore think that Stephen Harper mischaracterized the Israeli response when he called it "measured". The words he should have used were, "a regrettably neccesary response". Nonetheless, he stood with the right side as a matter of principle, and for that he should be applauded. Unfortunately, this has resulted in him being villified as a mere lackey of George W. Bush. I think that Harper's opinion of the conflict is based far more on principle than people give him credit for, and they have to remember that agreeing with the US from time to time is not the same as being at their beck and call. As for the 77 percent of Canadians who feel the government should take a neutral stance in the conflict, I think they need to remember the difference between what is easy, and what is right.
Having said that, I did read Micheal Ignatieff's article on this topic in the Globe and Mail yesterday and I have to say that he makes a strong argument. He basically says that Canada needs to join others in the call for an immediate ceasefire, and that then Canada should spearhead a multinational force to secure the borders of Lebanon and prevent the influx of Iranian and Syrian weapons to Hezbollah. He actually agrees with Bush, Harper and Ehud Olmert, with the exception of the word immediate. No one has managed to point this out though.
Anyway, there are only two problems with Ignatieff's plan. First, if it was not a ceasefire promising the disarmamament of Hezbollah, the image in Israel and around the Arab world would be of an IDF defeat. Israel would not have accomplished their goals. Calling a ceasefire with no promise of the return of their soldiers and the disarmament of Hezbollah would be politically disasterous for Olmert's government, and given Kadima's unilateral disengagement plan, that is the last thing I, and the western world as a whole, should want. Support for the government's actions within Israel is tremendously high, contrasting with international opinion.
Second, Canada's military is already stretched to its limit, and is ill-prepared to participate in, much less spearhead, a multinational force. But Ignatieff has it right otherwise. His plan fulfills Harper and Olmert's wish for a more lasting solution to the problem, rather than an immediate ceasefire, which would simply allow Hezbollah to regroup. Ignatieff just needs to realize that Olmert, politically, needs a guarantee before he can call a ceasefire. The west should get its act together and provide such a guarantee as soon as possible. Harper might have done it already except he knows it is logistically impossible for Canada. The EU and US have to be the catalysts.
That's almost all I have to say, there are just two more things. The first concerns the hysteria in the media about the civilian casualties Israel is causing. People need to understand that this is one of Hezbollah's main aims. They intentionally fire their rockets and place their hideouts in heavily populated civilian areas so that Israel is forced to hit them. They know that their cause is strengthend if Israel is villified, and they apparently care about that more than Lebanese lives. So far, Hezbollah's plan is working. That is bad news. The last thing I have to say is on a bit of another topic. The criticism of the Harper government for the evacuation of Canadians is unfounded. Canada had no presence in that region, so it unfair to compare the Canadian effort to the American when the US has massive military resources in the region. Given the complexity of evacuating thousands of Canadians a week is a perfectly acceptable time-frame in my books. That's all for now, but part 3 will be along soon enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment