The Israeli Lebanon Conflict
Latest posts at the bottom
Posted 8/23/06 (By Travis)
8/23/06 Neoperspectives.com
When discussing the Middle East, there is the tendency to get lost in the convoluted histories, cultural idiosyncrasies, and/or the supposed irreducible complexities of the region. To be perfectly honest, it would best to toss all this out, or better yet, not even consider it at all. :) Sometimes there is a certain beauty to simplicity.
In theory, a government's only real duties are to defend the property of its citizens, promote liberty, and ensure equal application of the law. Thus, when Hezbollah recently kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, it is more than fair to assume Hezbollah is intruding on their liberty and property, namely their physical bodies.
Now, if Israeli citizens within Israel had committed the kidnapping, the Israeli government would be responsible for using all methods within the law to bring the guilty parties to justice via the criminal system. If bandits from another country were responsible, the situation would be more complex, as Israel would expect that country to do all in its power to investigate the criminal act. Mexico and the United States frequently cooperate and prosecute cross border activity.
However, Hezbollah is a sovereign government, which planned the kidnapping and publicly gave it their full support. Thus, it is the duty of any moral government, hopefully at the bequest of their citizens, to defend their citizens and consider such an attack an act of war. It might be argued that Hezbollah is not a sovereign government, as the area they control is under the jurisdiction of the government of Lebanon. But, here we are again descending into misleading diplomatic jargonspeak and gobbledygook legalese. Jurisdiction is a useless term as it deals only in the theoretical. The physical control of southern Lebanon is under the entire control of Hezbollah and thus it must be considered a sovereign government.
So, it follows that Israel has the responsibility to retaliate with the lethal use of force (the only monopoly government should have) against Hezbollah until the soldiers are returned or until Hezbollah is destroyed. But who controls Hezbollah? Hezbollah was created, funded, and is currently armed and supported by Syria and Iran. In fact, it might be more accurate to say Syria and Iran share sovereignty over southern Lebanon. The strange discrepancies between the jurisdiction and control of southern Lebanon is due to assaults on the sovereignty of Lebanon by Syria and Iran, through their proxy, Hezbollah.
The reasons for these meddlings have already been outlined in 'Middle Eastern Governments and Causes of Terrorism'; the tyrannies imposed on the Iranian and Syrian people by their respective criminal governments are made more tolerable via state creation of 'external enemies'; although, it has been pointed out that it is possible some of these leaders are delusional enough to believe their own propaganda.
Israel is therefore fully justified in attacking and eliminating Syria and Iran, unless those countries renounce and end support for Hezbollah's kidnapping of the Israeli citizens.
But, isn't this an extreme response? Two soldiers are kidnapped and thousands die in a massive war? Isn't the response 'disproportionate'?
Well, what is the alternative? To allow a sovereign government to seize the liberty and destroy the property of the citizens of another sovereign government? If liberty and property are not respected the only result can be more violence and death than if righteousness is upheld.
If Hezbollah (Syria/Iran) apologizes, reforms, and the soldiers are returned, shouldn't Israel end its attacks? Of course, the answer is yes; if the attacks continued Israel would become the aggressor. However, if repeated terrorism, kidnapping, and, killings become the norm, as has been the case with Hezbollah, it is Israel's duty to destroy Hezbollah and its sponsors, accepting nothing less than unconditional surrender.
Upon victory, which will be Israel's as it is a freer country with the resulting greater economic output and greater industrial/military production capabilities, Israel should establish a despotic military government with an appointed general as governor of the conquered territories whilst a new constitution is written and a representative free constitution and government is formed. Israeli troops should remain present for years to come to ensure no backsliding of liberty occurs. The result will be a lasting peace.
I recognize this solution is not a mainstream position. :) But historically it is how lasting peace has been attained. World War II, a total defeat of Germany, a total defeat of Japan, brought those countries to experience great freedoms and prosperities. In World War I, a partial defeat of Germany, where they 'negotiated' a false peace resulted in the opposite of the peacemakers intentions.
Obviously, as any student of Middle East history knows, this pattern has never occurred in the Middle East. Israel will not defeat its enemies! It has been tormented by the criminal Middle Eastern governments, terrorism, the anti-Israel United Nations, the biased media, and its own population influenced by the aforementioned. There has been 50 years of 'wars', if you can even call them that, endless talk and negotiations with terrorists, thugs, and criminals, and Israel has been played by every one of them like a puppet. It has consistently been put in untenable positions, even by its chief ally, us, the United States. The result and reality is that Israel has not been permitted to defend its own citizens. Could you imagine if the Mexican government, funded by the Soviet Union, committed terrorist acts against American citizens, launched rockets into Texas, kidnapped American citizens, and then in retaliation we sort of fudgepudged around northern Mexico for a bit, agreed to a cease-fire, sat down to 'talk' with the terrorists, and then were criticized by the United Nations for our 'disproportionate response'? I don't think this analogy is a stretch at all.
The critics are right about one thing: there is a 'disproportionate response' and it is Israel's.
Posted 8/23/06 (By Travis)
(Follow up on 'The Israel Lebanon Conflict' Above)
I must admit, this whole idea of endorsing war by governments on each other is repulsive, to say the least, sort of like groupies cheering for bands of mafiosa criminal groups tearing down each other. In a perverse sort of way, it might even be laughable, except that it is ordinary people who get hurt, not the rulers. Despite this inherent difficulty, it is important to point out that, notwithstanding expansive government's proper seat in the crosshairs as public enemy number one, there are degrees of government and degrees of tyrannies. War is always initiated by the less free (Hezbollah/Syria/Iran) against the freer (Israel); thus those that live in the free must battle off the less free before dealing with their own government.
Still, whilst the benefits of economic and social freedoms can, generally, be stated with a great degree of confidence, verdicts on wars or conflicts between governments seem to be more difficult, as the number of variables juggled is vastly multiplied. Besides, one always has a nagging feeling deeper premises are being violated. Thus, take the opinion in 'The Israeli Lebanon Conflict', with a grain of salt.
See, the Israel Palestine Conflict, for more.
Posted 8/31/06 (By Travis)
Hezbollah says its war with Israel was a mistake
TEL AVIV -- Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said yesterday that he would not have ordered
the July 12 seizure of two Israeli soldiers had he known it would provoke a war that leveled
Shi'ite villages and neighborhoods throughout Lebanon.
"We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war
at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation
would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not," he told Lebanon's New TV
station.
A rather galling admission if you ask me. Could you imagine if the Mexican government had seized two American soldiers and said the same thing?
How could the response have been anything else?! How could this terrorist imagine it would be any different? Perhaps because Israel has been just as spineless in the past as it was in this conflict. Why was it spineless in this conflict? Well, the two soldiers Hezbollah kidnapped are still missing and the government of Israel is doing nothing. It is not protecting the property of its citizens and as such has failed in its duty as a sovereign government.
Posted 8/13/06 (By Travis)
I've been meaning to write an extensive post on the Israeli/Lebanon situation, but these two videos will hopefully suffice until then:
For more see, the Israel Palestine Conflict
Of further possible interest, 'Middle Eastern Governments and Causes of Terrorism'.