We’re told by many commenters that Israel’s recent adventure in Lebanon is a victory because Hezbollah has alienated the Lebanese people and its Shiite supporters by provoking Israel into “destoying Lebanon.” Destroying Lebanon? Didn’t these same pro-Israel partistans tell us during thecampaign that Israel was scrupulously avoiding civilian casualties and other forms of collateral damage? The two concepts are irreconcilable; if Israel merely surgically struck Hezbollah and other military targets ordinary Lebanese people should not be so angry, no? Instead, a great number of them, including Christian leaders like Michel Aoun, have condemned Israel and expressed solidarity with Hezbollah. Someone forgot to tell them that the End of History made such fellow feeling for their countrymen in the case of foreign attacks obsolete.
Isn’t it obvious that one can’t be a careful respecter of human rights and also succeed in terrorizing a population into submission? And isn’t it obvious that the public relations strategy that aims to show that Isreal was both a victor and a practioner of just war are based on opposing premises?
Subscribe To This Feed
Try as the might, the neo-cons can’t con anyone into believing that Israel benefited from their aggression into Lebanon.
Maybe Israel and President Lunkhead and the WSJ believe that the misery Israel created for innocent women and children will “teach them a lesson” not to support “terrorists”.
But this hasn’t worked in Gaza or the Left Bank, and the result of years of wars of collective punishment on Palestinan civilians was the Palestinans almost unanimous election of HAMAS, not moderates.
The kind of stuff that Israel did to Lebanon isn’t working. It isn’t working for Israel, and it’s not working for the US in Iraq either.