Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions - Number one

When I was young, one of my favorite magazines was William Gaines' Mad Magazine. In the tradition of great Jewish subversives, Gaines poked fun at all the pieties of middle class American society, provoking young minds to think differently than their elders.

One of my favorite sections of the magazine was called "Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions," written and drawn by the great Al Jaffee (you think he was Jewish too?). Jaffee would have some typical middle class person asking some banal question, and he would provide three ludicrous and inappropriate responses.

While I lack the talent of Al's gang of writers and illustrators, when I hear some of the stupid comments people make about the current war in Lebanon, I just wish I could come up with some snappy answers. I'm sure lot's of people feel the same. Unfortunately, snappy is not my style. Some might accuse me of being long winded. So to keep things short I'll just stick to one question per post.

Stupid question number one: "What should Israel do? Just sit on its hands while Hezbollah rains missles on it?"

Answer: Exactly! The statement that Hezbollah has been constantly attacking Israel over the past six years is just a big lie. Since Israel withdrew from Lebanon, the border has been quite calm, except for very minor incidents and skirmishes.

It was precisely the calm border that was putting Sheikh Nasrallah under increasing international pressure to disarm. His main excuse not to, was that Hezbollah needed arms to defend Lebanon against Israeli agression. But what is he defending if no attacks on Lebanon are taking place?

Nasrallah also prides himself in scrupulously abiding by international law and only responding to "Zionist provocations." In fact, Hezbollah did start this incident by firing some Katyushas and capturing the Israeli soldiers. But the massive Israeli attack gave him the legitimacy to respond to Israeli violence with counter-violence. When he bombs Haifa and Israeli gun-boats, when his soldiers fight against Israeli ground troops, he can now honestly claim he is defending Lebanon against Israeli attacks.

The best Israeli response would have been a diplomatic one - to use this incident to point out that Hezbollah is armed to the teeth and out of control. Israel's restraint would have put Hezbullah in a bad light, and legitimized the central government's demands against Hezbullah. The international community could strengthen the Lebanese government and help it disarm Hezbullah, without it being seen as a "collaborator" with Israel.

Force is always an option. In fact, the threat of force is usually far more effective than its actual use. But Israel never said, "put your arms down or else." Instead, Israel acted like a big, scared bully and started firing in all directions. The result is that Israel, not Hezbullah, is seen as out of control and the Lebanese central government has been weakened. Despite the anger of many Lebanese against Hezbullah, many more support its actions. It will be far more difficult to bring pressure to bear to disarm Hezbullah now, since it is once more basking in its role as the defender of "Arab honor" against "Zionist aggression." Any government trying to disarm Hezullah, will be seen as "collaborating with the Zionists."

<  |  >