Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions - Number Two

Nicholas Kristof column today addresses a more sophisticated variant of the first question I raised. Obviously his mild criticism of Israel's approach made all the "pro-Israel" types flood his mailbox. Here's how he phrases the question he received from his readers:

"What else can a country do when it is subjected to rocket attacks and cross-border raids by a terrorist organization committed to its destruction? If that terror group finds a safe haven just across an international border, and the government and the army there cannot control it, then what other option is there but to destroy that menace?

Uprooting Hezbollah may inadvertently cause some civilian casualties, so the argument goes, but the number would be unnoticed if the victims had died at the hands of an Arab government (so far, 1,000 times as many Muslims have died in Darfur as in Lebanon). In the end, sitting ducks have to fight back."

This actually can be broken up into five separate questions:

1. "when it is subjected to rocket attacks and cross-border raids" - Israel has been subject to ceaseless attacks over the past six years and so has shown restraint up until this point. How much longer need it restrain itself?
2. "terrorist organization committed to its destruction" - Terrorists only understand force and nothing will stop them except their destruction. How can we negotiate with terrorists?
3. "Uprooting Hezbollah may inadvertently cause some civilian casualties" - The end justifies the means, so why are you complaining about a few civilians killed if in the long run many more lives will be saved?
4. "the number would be unnoticed if the victims had died at the hands of an Arab government" Israel is far more moral than its enemies so why does the whole world pick on us? [Obviously they are all anti-semites]
5. "what other option is there but to destroy that menace" - this is essentially question 1 from my previous post.

Since I already addressed question 5, I will answer the other four one at a time. Today I will deal with question 1:

Answer:

This is just a blatant lie. Since Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, the Lebanese border has been extremely quiet. For some bizarre reason Israel insisted on holding on to the Sheba Farm and that has been a point of friction between it and the Hezbullah. But even so, the tension has only flared into violence on rare occassions. It is quite astonishing Israel didn't agree to some international arbitration on the disputed land, as it eventually did in Taba. As in the latter case, Israel's stubborn insistence on holding out was just like picking at an open sore, causing yourself senseless pain

Related to this question is the pat phrase "Israel withdrew from Lebanon and look at the reward we got." In his response, even Kristof falls into a trap by repeating this stupid statement as if it were fact.

In case nobody noticed, here is a list of some of the rewards Israel reaped by withdrawing from Lebanon 6 years ago:

1. No more young Israeli soldiers dying in Lebanon for no good reason.
2. No more Katyushas falling on the cities of the north, allowing tourism to once again flourish in that region.
3. The stabilization of Lebanon and the end of internal violence
4. International pressure which successfully led to Syria withdrawing from Lebanon
5. Democratic elections in Lebanon made possible by 3 and 4
6. The growing consolidation of power in the newly elected Lebanese government and army
7. A UN resolution calling for the disarmament of Hezbullah and internal pressure in Lebanon moving in that direction

Israel wasn't rewarded for its withdrawal from Lebanon? For each one of the above Israelis should say Dayenu in the sense of the gratitude expressed in the Passover song. Instead Israel says "enough already, let's bomb the bastards" and goes right back into Lebanon, and by so doing, threatens to destroy all the accomplishments of the past 6 years.

Had Israel shown restraint and not attacked after the kidnapping of its soldiers, the several hundred people already killed, the thousands wounded, the hundreds of thousands homeless would all be alive and well and continuing to lead a normal life in their homes. Lebanon and Israel would both be intact, with no missles raining down on either side. International pressure would have been brought to bear on Hezabullah and the Lebanese government to complete the implementation of UN Resolution 1559 and free the captured Israeli soldiers. How much longer should Israel have shown restraint? As long as it takes to strengthen the Lebanese government and undermine Hezbullah. Fools rush in...

<  |  >