Israel-Lebanon Commentary round-up

(Granted, it's all from Ha'aretz, but my internet connection is being spotty at the moment.)

Uzi Beniamin has a nice piece hammering the far-righties and far-lefties for connecting Hezbollah's bullshit with whoever they feel like in order to get cheap
(and far-fetched) political points.

The Gush Shalom peace organization published an announcement over the weekend linking the Hezbollah assault on Israel with the military response in Gaza to the abduction of Corporal Gilad Shalit. Right-wing commentators, for their part, compared Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah with the entire Arab world, viewing his aggression as proof of the inherent satanic character of all Arabs, which drives them to seek Israel's destruction.

Gush Shalom's reasoning is based on the following logic: The Kerem Shalom military outpost was attacked, and Gilad Shalit was kidnapped, because of Israel's refusal to talk with the Hamas government of the Palestinian Authority. As a result of its refusal to negotiate toward a prisoner exchange, Israel launched a broad military operation in the Gaza Strip, which led Hezbollah to strike in the north and drag Israel into a war in Lebanon that could rock the entire region.

The conclusion to which Gush Shalom's argument points is unequivocal: Israel is the catalyst for the destructive chain of events. The right, on the other hand, pins the blame on the evil, inherent nature of all Arabs, from the moment of birth: They are intolerant of Jews, Israel and Western civilization and they seek, with zealous persistence, to impose Islamic rule on the entire world.

In the eyes of the right, all Arab governments are Al-Qaida, either overtly or covertly, and all Muslims are Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah.

The leftist responses do not distinguish between Israel's (partial) responsibility for the continuing conflict with the Palestinians and the dominant belief within fundamentalist Islam - represented on Israel's borders by Hamas and Hezbollah - that denies Israel's right to exist and rejects all dialogue, on religious grounds.

At the other extreme, the right's stereotyping of the Arab world ignores its multifaced nature as well as the willingess of the governments of Egypt, Jordan and more distant Arab states to maintain peaceful relations with Israel. It ignores the possibility of finding a partner in dialogue toward an agreement within Palestinian society, which is partly, if not largely, secular. The equation proposed by the right at this difficult time - that the withdrawal from Lebanon led to the Katyushas being fired on northern Israel, just as the disengagement from the Gaza Strip led to the Qassams in the south - reflects a deterministic view of human behavior. It says that a higher power, that is not controlled by the same rules governing life on Earth, sentences Israel to eternal violent conflict with its environment. The events of the last two weeks, however, are proof that this is not the case.

It's pretty good stuff, actually. Nuance is usually a pretty good step in the right direction.

As an example of people Beniamin is annoyed with, take a look at Nadav Shragai, who says the Israelis are reaping what they sowed by leaving Gaza AND thinking it would lead to an idyllic pre-lapsarian Willy Wonka world. (Which, as established a little while ago, isn't quite fair.)

Hezbollah and its Palestinian pupils internalized this and made note of it. After the wars against terror, like the one going on now, come the retreats, and then more wars, which lead to more retreats. Terror sows and then reaps. Fact: The blood of the dead and wounded had yet to dry and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was already making clear that in addition to the two fronts where unilateral steps were taken - with great success, as everyone knows - he will undertake another unilateral move. The "convergence," right next to the main mass of Israel's population, will take place, he insists.

The truth? We earned it honestly as a nation of gullible fools, who over and over followed the illusions of quiet, peace and demography sold buy its leaders. We deserve it. However, the influence of the recent events has moved something, maybe temporarily, but something has moved. Suddenly, there's not enough room on board for all those who are disengagement opponents.

..."We told you so" should be shouted out bitterly now, not to win medals but to prevent Olmert and his government from dragging us into another adventure with a foregone conclusion. The law of disengagement, as Uri Elitzur recently wrote, may say its goal is to lead to a better security reality, but reality is the devil's work; it behaves according to common sense and not the Knesset's decisions.

First, I'm getting a little annoyed at the suggestion that the four minor settlements in the West Bank were at all equivalent- strategically, culturally, population-wise, economically, or traumatically- to Gush Katif. I've found little evidence to back this up, and the willingness by the right to play up this "two front" thing- we left Gaza "AND (part) of Judea and Samaria"- Heaven forbid!- is getting kind of old, and is also hurting their credibility insofar as their ability to report something honestly and with appropriate levels of importance/significance. This is all more interesting because the right constantly hammers the left (media and politicians) for doing the exact same thing. Incidentally, for those who say Ha'aretz is too left-wing, Shragai seems to be a pretty good indication that they let their columnists say what they want.

Second, while Shragai has a point that the Palestinians saw Disengagement as a victory- this isn't news. EVERYONE was saying this, including left-wingers. The difference was that the left and center supported leaving despite these things, saying it was ultimately worth it if it let Israel wash its hands of Gaza and a million and a half Palestinians. Now, you may want to beat them over the head for that, but at least let's debate the actual positions people held. This "the lefties thought Disengagement would solve everything" crap is an absurd, dishonest and unfair strawman.

I'm not sure what to think of Gideon Levy's latest.

I'd say he has a couple of valid points here:

- The perception of Israel responding with disproportionate force does it no favors, either in the international community or vis-a-vis the Palestinians (or other Arab states). That said, this is hardly a new or significant change from where things were before reg. people's good-will.

- It's important for Olmert (and Peretz) to have concrete and detailed goals, implementation stategies, and exit strategies for Lebanon. In fact, it's critical to avoiding another 20-year Peace for the Galilee.

- There are some uncomfortable ethical issues brought up in punishing the general populace for the actions or policies of a relatively small number of them. I.e., is it ethical to blow up the house of a person who supports Hamas or Hezbollah (even to the point of voting for them) if they have not actively participated in terror or financed it through monetary donations? Then again, this question is endemic to war as a whole, particularly wars fought within very small boundaries and near, around, or in, major population centers. Whether we like it or not, there has always been a strong civilian component to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (particularly in terms of what targets are or aren't acceptable), and I don't see that changing anytime soon. [This is not to say that both sides have the same standards for acceptable targets per se, though I'm certainly unconvinced the IDF is the untarnished beacon of military justness that the ZOA would have us believe.]

- Lastly, the biggest issue is results. If we can shit on the Disengagement because it didn't change the conflict's status quo (which isn't quite true but never mind...), we must hold this War-to-be-named-later to the same standard. The Israelis need to set a timetable after which other options have to be considered- both in Lebanon and Gaza. They also need to, again, assess goals. Is Shalit the primary reason to be in Gaza? Then if incursions don't work, try diplomacy. Ditto for Lebanon. What is the goal and how can be reached? These are important questions.

Damn, out of time. Here are a few final links:

- Former IAF commander has some thoughts on prisoner swaps.
- Ha'aretz's editor David Landau urges caution and some critical thinking about Lebanon.
- Ze'ev Schiff says a three-front war is really not a good idea right now.