Serving Bread

Comment from anon July 14, 2006 at 9:07 pm

I’m sure others would say the same about Israel — that is a war between Iran and the U.S., where Lebanon and Israel are merely cats paws? Why doesn’t the U.S. tell Israel to back down when it could? The U.S. was the only nation that vetoed the U.N. resolution for a cease fire. I think the U.S. wants this war to happen. It’s sick. And I happen to be American.

Comment from Eddy E July 14, 2006 at 10:52 pm

Interesting point about this being a proxy war for the US. Haven’t thought of it that way. The last time we fought a proxy war, we lost–and it hurt us pretty bad–and now have a wall with 58,000 names on it!

Comment from Alex July 16, 2006 at 1:46 pm

Lebanon is a sovereign nation with responsibility for policing its own territory. If it is unable to reign in terrorist organizations within its own borders, what alternative does Israel have? As far as I’m concerned, Lebanon gets what it deserves. And hopefully the attacks in Lebanon are a prelude to a widening of the conflict to Syria, so the despot Assad in Damascus can be toppled as well. The sooner all this happens the better for Israel and the world. In case you haven’t noticed, there is a war on between Islamic fascists and those of us (including Israel) who believe in freedom and democracy. The current conflict is simply another front in this ongoing war.

Comment from Eddy E July 16, 2006 at 9:28 pm

Alex, thanks for stopping by, but I respectfully disagree. I understand your worldview, and what you say makes sense within that framework. However, it\’s a bit more complicated than saying, \”Lebanon gets what it deserves.\”

In case you may not know, Lebanon was in a bitter civil war for 15 years. And in the past 15 years, it has been trying to recover. It is a fragile democracy. The country has been devastated along sectarian lines. It is a weak government, and in that weakness, Hezbollah has come in and gained the \”trust\” of the people and free reign.

The major blame for the Lebanese civil war was the war of 1948 (Israel\’s Independence) which drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees into Lebanon. It is through that experience along with the many refugees that has partly created room for Hezbollah to thrive.

In fact, Lebanon is one of the few Arab countries where it\’s foreseeable that they could have a good diplomatic relationship with Israel. (You have to remember that Israel and the Lebanese government have worked together in the past against the various Shiite and some of the Palestinian groups–back in 1982)

If the attitude remains that \”Lebanon gets what it deserves\” this is what will happen: Israel will win this battle, but it will lose the war. And those of us who believe in freedom and democracy will only be investing in more hatred.

If Israel wants to shut down Hezbollah, they need to cut off the head–and that head is in Iran.

Finally, it\’s easy for us to \”debate\” whether or not Israel or Hezbollah have a right to this when we are thousands of miles away. Having grown up and lived in a war zone, there is a reality to the violence that may never be recognizable to the debaters.

Comment from Alex July 17, 2006 at 9:29 am

Actually, I’m fairly familiar with the history of the region and while I allow that the situation is complicated, the implicit anti-Israel/anti-Jewish attitudes of your response merit attention. Perhaps you have never considered these before.

To lay the blame for the Lebanese civil war at the feet of Israel, who in your words “drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees into Lebanon” is a gross oversimplification – the roots lie much further back in the colonial history of the region and the basic incompatibility of the various sectarian groups. But of course it is the very existence of Israel itself that causes so many problems in the region, at least in your view. Alas this is not the first time that the Jewish people have had to confront such a worldview and it is why Jews take the defense of their homeland so seriously.

Ironically, I believe that Israel’s hard-line position against shiite militias both in Lebabnon and Gaza may in fact pave the way for improved diplomatic relations in the region. Despite its weakness, the Lebanese government has to understand that Israel cannot tolerate extremist groups with long-range missiles so close to its borders. If this sends Lebanon back into a spiral of civil war and violence, so be it. Civilized nations fight such wars, even civil wars, to preserve their own independence and integrity. My hope is that Israel’s actions will impel moderate Arab governments to rethink allowing such terrorist groups to operate within their borders.

And as far as Syria/Iran are concerned, war with them has probably been inevitable, and I believe we are witnessing now the opening phase. Of course the reality of war is brutal, and it has touched my family as well, but sometimes circumstances dictate it as unavoidable.

Comment from Eddy July 17, 2006 at 2:08 pm

While there are several statements you make with which I do disagree (on a personal and historical grounds), I will respond to only one. You write, “the implicit anti-Israel/anti-Jewish attitudes of your response merit attention.” I am at a loss as to why disagreeing with Israel’s strategy automatically marks me as “anti-Israel and anti-Jewish.”

The fact is that I can disagree with Israel’s response and its contributions to the chaos and conflict at hand, without being anti-Israel or anti-Jewish.

Comment from Alex July 18, 2006 at 7:10 am

Obviously I don’t know you personally and have only glanced at your site once or twice, but here is the issue: characterizing Israel’s actions as “picking on the weakest guy on the block” betrays unexamined assumptions about the nature of Israel’s existence in relation to the Muslim world. I might argue that Israel is in fact the “weakest” participant in the current struggle, surrounded as it is on virtually all sides by hostile neighbors. And this is not even to mention the historic roots of anti-semitism in both the Christian and Muslim worlds. “Israel” (whether in the land or not) has been on the defensive for thousands of years, and I find it ironic that when Jews finally gain the capacity to defend themselves and then exercise that capability in the face of brutally violent terrorist attacks, they are criticized for resorting to violence. Where is the outcry in the rest of the world for atrocities committed against Jews? Why castigate Israel for defending itself when in the very same week shiite extremists murder dozens of civilians in Iraq?

Whether or not you are personally anti-Jewish, I have no idea (I rather doubt it). But your post participates in the kind of implicit anti-semitism that too often characterizes discourse about the Jews and the nation of Israel.

Comment from Spanglish Gringo July 24, 2006 at 2:55 pm

I might argue that Israel is in fact the “weakest” participant in the current struggle, surrounded as it is on virtually all sides by hostile neighbors.

This might mean that Israel is the most hated, even the most targeted country in the region.

But that does not equate Israel with being the weakest country. Regardless of the “rightness” of Israel’s response, the reality is that Israel has one of the strongest military forces in the world. I believe that negates a designation as weakest.

P.S. I also don’t know you personally, Alex, however, it is both inappropriate to throw down the “you don’t really know what you are talking about” card regarding anti-ethnic violence on someone’s blog who grew up as a child in Lebanon & whose people were victims of the largest genocide in the last century.