The politics surrounding the state of Israel in the United States are, to say the least, difficult. On both sides, you get harsh, knee-jerk reaction, an unthinking reversion to easy black-and-white stereotypes — the more radical fringe of the left paints Israel as a monolithic aggressor, while mainstream political voices, the Jewish community and the right view Israel as a besieged underdog.
We sent a reporter to a rally this week in Princeton attended by members of several local congregations. What struck me was not so much the support of Israel, but the fervor in the support, the tendency to view all Israeli actions through the prism of necessity, as with this quotation from Marty Katz of Congregation B’nai Tikvah:
“You can’t sit by idly and have rockets rain down on you. You have to fight back.”
It’s hard to argue with this, except that it ignores whether the current Israeli response is proportional — or somewhat equal — to the initial Hezbollah assault. That is debatable at best.
It leads to a moral quagmire in which we are willing — depending on which side we are supporting — to endorse actions we otherwise might find repugnant. For supporters of Israel, that means backing the bombing of civilian targets and the destruction of infrastructure and the use of a moral calculus that is dubious at best. Richard Cohen in The Washington Post, for instance, dismisses “proportionality,” granting Israel the right to operate on a different ethical plane than everyone else.
Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows that proportionality is madness. For Israel, a small country within reach, as we are finding out, of a missile launched from any enemy’s back yard, proportionality is not only inapplicable, it is suicide. The last thing it needs is a war of attrition. It is not good enough to take out this or that missile battery. It is necessary to reestablish deterrence: You slap me, I will punch out your lights.
Why this should be allowable for Israel and not for other nations … well, that’s not explored. It is a dangerous recipe, one that — like the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war — invites abuse.
My sense, watching this conflict on television as a 43-year-old, left-leaning, Jewish pacifist, is that Israel was right to respond but that it has been too aggressive in its response, targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure and seemingly going out of its way to incite the rage of the rest of the Arab world.
Therefore, I have to agree with Ze’ev Maoz, who wrote earlier this week in the Israeli daily, Haaretz, that the war in Lebanon, as it is being waged at the moment, “is not a just war.”
Israel is using excessive force without distinguishing between civilian population and enemy, whose sole purpose is extortion. That is not to say that morality and justice are on Hezbollah’s side. Most certainly not. But the fact that Hezbollah “started it” when it kidnapped soldiers from across an international border does not even begin to tilt the scales of justice toward our side.
Hezbollah carries plenty of blame — it acted unilaterally and violently to draw Israel into this fight — but, as Maoz writes, this does not vindicate the Israeli government:
What exactly is the difference between launching Katyushas into civilian population centers in Israel and the Israel Air Force bombing population centers in south Beirut, Tyre, Sidon and Tripoli? The IDF has fired thousands of shells into south Lebanon villages, alleging that Hezbollah men are concealed among the civilian population. Approximately 25 Israeli civilians have been killed as a result of Katyusha missiles to date. The number of dead in Lebanon, the vast majority comprised of civilians who have nothing to do with Hezbollah, is more than 300.
Worse yet, bombing infrastructure targets such as power stations, bridges and other civil facilities turns the entire Lebanese civilian population into a victim and hostage, even if we are not physically harming civilians. The use of bombings to achieve a diplomatic goal — namely, coercing the Lebanese government into implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1559 — is an attempt at political blackmail, and no less than the kidnapping of IDF soldiers by Hezbollah is the aim of bringing about a prisoner exchange.
He asks that Israel (and I would expand this to include Israel’s American supporters) “confront the bitter truth — maybe we will win this conflict on the military field, maybe we will make some diplomatic gains, but on the moral plane, we have no advantage, and we have no special status.”
In the end, I fear, after all the blood has been shed, Israel will be no safer.
Tikkun magazine offers an interesting mix of essays on the topic, covering all sides, with the basic theme being a search for peace.
Hank Kalet 