Guilt diplomacy: Different moral standards for Israel and Hezbollah


Why does only one side have to play by the rules?
Uriah Kriegel writes a pretty good take on the different moral standards applied to Israel and Hezbollah.

It's at this stage of the dialectic that the first allowance is made in defense of Hezbollah. Hezbollah has to target civilians, we're told, because it's not powerful enough to challenge the Israeli military. By this logic, the traditional principle that civilian casualties should be avoided should be modified so that it applies only to the winning side. The newly fashioned principle would read: "avoid civilian casualties -- unless you're losing." Thus, when the tide started turning against Germany in WWII, it would have been morally acceptable for it to start targeting civilians.

The second allowance is a new expression of the "infallible haters" mode of reasoning. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it was often asked "why do they hate us?" -- with the insinuation that if they hate us, they must have a (good) reason. Now that Israel is defending itself against its own diehard haters, many predict that its forceful response to Hezbollah's latest harassment would only generate more hatred in the region. The fact that hatred toward Israel would intensify is taken to carry some moral weight -- to provide indirect evidence that Israel's actions are morally wrong. Just as the kind of Muslim hatred of America that culminated in the 9/11 attacks was mystifyingly taken as evidence of some moral liability on America's part, rather than on the haters' part, so Israel-hatred on the Arab street is taken to indicate something morally problematic about Israel's actions.

I think it is a version of the "guilt" mentality that Shelby Steele's book helped me to notice. Arguably it has shaped American and Western diplomacy since at least the early 1970s. And European diplomats have been using it to keep the US "in it's place" since then.

So here is the question that should be asked.

Why is Hezbollah entitled to special treatment from the Israelis?

Israel is fighting in Lebanon, but they aren't fighting Lebanon. Nor, despite the provocation of Hezbollah, is Israel fighting either Iran or Syria. Iran funds Hesbollah, Syria provides the staging area and some logistical support. Wars have been started for considerably less.

The Lebanese government has proven itself incapable of restraining Hezbollah. What alternatives does Israel have?

I'd argue that Israel doesn't have any alternatives that do not escalate the situation. When all your choices are bad ones, you might as well act decisively.

Additional Technorati Tags

— NeoWayland

Posted: Tue - August 8, 2006 at 05:05 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved