First, in trying to get a better understanding the situation, here is an excellent collection of reports from bloggers on both sides of the conflict. PajamasMedia also has a great roundup of news reports related to this crisis (check out the links on the top right of their website for their most recent updates). Here is a map of the conflict:
(click image for larger view)
See another map of the conflict here.
I am aware that my perspective is somewhat biased in that most of the news and information we receive in the US reflects more of the Western/Israeli perspective. I want to understand the Arab perspective better and get a deeper understanding of the history of the conflict as preceived by both sides.
With this in mind, I do want to repsond to a couple of comments by Ali with quotes from other bloggers.
In his post on Lebanon, Ali quotes CNN:
This seems to imply that the conflict is particularly atrocious on Israel's part because of the disparity in casualties. Cox and Forkum offers a counter view:
"Lebanese officials said Sunday that 104 people have been killed and 286 wounded in the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants that began Wednesday.
A total of 12 Israeli civilians and 12 Israeli military personnel have been killed since Wednesday. More than 100 others have been wounded."
Are the disproportionate deaths evidence of Israel's lack of concern for civillian deaths or Hamas's disregard for human life and willingness to hide behind human shields? The casualty statistics can be used to support either conclusion and do not prove either one. A classic example of confirmation bias.
The criticism that Israel is using a "disproportionate response" to the kidnappings of its soldiers is an attempt to morally disarm Israel and make Israel out to be a bully. This notion is ludicrous when considered in the full context: Hezbollah and Hamas initiated the current crisis in an ongoing war against Israel's right to exist. Notice that no one cried "disproportionate response" when Hamas demanded 1,200 prisoners in exchange for one Israeli hostage. Hamas and Hezbollah aren't playing a game of proportions, why should Israel?
Ali also asks:
I find myself less sympahtetic to this question. According to Wikipedia:
...from a principled perspective, how can the US undermine a democratically elected Hamas? Where's its moral compass?
[Hamas] is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Israel, and the United States, and is banned in Jordan.
If anything, the election of Hamas illustrates why democracy is not a panacea. Just because some person or party or law is democratically elected does not give it any form of moral legitimacy. Hamas has been considered a terrorist organization for many, many years prior to their rise to democratically elected power. Hitler and the Nazi party was elected democratically. If anything, I see the US not altering its position on Hamas despite their election is evidence that it has a moral compass.If the US immediately changed its perspective after Hamas's election, it would indicate that they were subject to situational ethics rather than residing on moral principles. The question to be debated is whether or not Hamas is a terrorist organization. If it is, then the moral compass of the US is correct. If it is not, then the US moral compass needs to be adjusted. Neither of these positions rests on the analysis of whether or not it is democratically elected. Is there an argument for Hamas not being viewed as a terrorist organization?
As a counterpoint to illustrate what I'm talking about, would anyone be in favor of ceasing our hunting down Al Queda if they were suddenly democratically elected in Afghanistan? I don't imagine many would be in favor of giving them "instant legitimacy".
The one thing I can't understand is Hizbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soilders. I am not surprised that Israel is countering this with very strong use of force. I've been studying a little game theory in preparation for my prelims next month and Israel has a very strong incentive to react against such measures with such force that no group would find it worthwhile to kidnap thier soldiers again in the future.
Unfortunately, thinking in game theoretic terms, there are no good unilateral options. Lebanon has no easy choices available to it -- endure the Israeli attacks or risk civil war. Likewise, Israel faces either continuing the escalation of conflict leading to war with Syria and probably Iran or standing down and agreeing to the prisoner exchange. Hizbollah is the one party that seems to benefit regardless the outcome. From a certain perspective, this makes Hizbollah's kidnappings all the more vile. They are able to act without risk, allowing Lebanon to bear all the cost of their actions.
From what I can understand of this situation, I don't see any easy way out of this conflict for any of the sides involved and place most of the blame at the feet of Hizbollah. My prayers go out to all involved in this conflict and I hope for a quick resolution.
Does anyone have any more thoughts on this situation?
Hattip Marginal Revolution.
10 comments:
Brian:
While no news source is going to be completely unbiased, I have found it illuminating to refer to both BBC and Guardian.co.uk for at least a second perspective. I haven’t yet searched for an Arab perspective. It is striking to read how much hatred exists on both sides. Further evidence of the dismal state of human nature.
I quoted the casualties as context for the CNN line suggesting Israel is trying to establish peace, effectively by indiscriminate bombing. Also, as somebody pointed out to me yesterday, it’s worth thinking how 1200 prisoners ended up in Israeli hands anyway. Are they all “terrorists”? Also, no one in the media has suggested that the Israeli “hostages” are in fact, Prisoners of War. You remember that cliché that says one mans terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter? I think that’s the way it looks to both Israel and the Arabs.
As for Hamas and the US, being labeled a terrorist organization is not sufficient proof that Hamas is indeed so. I’m not saying they haven’t had elements and factions that haven’t carried out violent aggression, but by that coin, what do you make of the US keeping POWs in Gitmo, or of the Israelis taking out an Iraqi nuclear plant in the 80s? The point is, might is right, and it’s unlikely that we can resolve how these labels are placed anyway. I did read an article by a British newspaper yesterday that pointed to the wide-spread charitable infrastructure that these organizations have laid out also. The point being that the water is too muddy to allow a simple good versus bad story.
When I question the US government’s moral compass, I do so from a Pakistani context. Pakistan has had sanctions (conveniently waived to facilitate the war in Afghanistan) placed explicitly because Musharraf overthrew a ‘democratically-elected’ government. These sanctions imply that the US State Department sees democracy as so high an ideal as to be defended by putting economically costly sanctions on an already crippled economy. And Pakistan isn’t alone either. There are tons of such cases. Given that the US Government feels so strongly about democracy, it just seems incongruent to suggest that it shouldn’t be more favorably disposed towards Hamas, the first elected government in Palestine in a decade. At the very least, support targeted at the political machinery would seem warranted.
To me, it’s clear that international relations have little to do with the principles they are justified by, and a lot to do with the interests of those involved. As an example, consider the widely acknowledge nuclear capability of Israel, and the lack of any US action against it, as opposed to nuclear related sanctions on India and Pakistan based on ‘suspicion’ and the current diplomatic skirmish with Iran. Principle doesn’t explain it Brian; might is right, and the rest of us just have to accept that. Hey, as students of economics, we all understand self-interest right?
As for Hezbollah having nothing to lose, you’re forgetting two things. First, any organization needs popular support. If the Lebanese think the current crisis is more Hezbollah’s doing than Israel’s, they stand to lose quite a lot. Second, they’re engaged in war with one of the world’s largest and most sophisticated armies. I’d say they have a lot to lose.
Ali,
I appreciate your thoughts on this and will start looking at BBC's and Guardian's coverage. I agree it is completely sad how much hatred exists in this situation. It seems the Arab hatred for the Jews overwhelms everything else. I don't understand this.
I've read a couple books by Bernard Lewis about the history of the situation and the best I can comprehend is that many of the Arabs hate the Jews to the point of wanting to exterminate them, regardless of cost.
As much as I can understand Israel's attacks, they are not indiscriminately bombing. They are, however, attacking any place that has weapons, regardless of where it is. Unfortunately, Hezbollah is hiding in residential areas. If Israel wants to destroy the weapons used against them, I don't think they have any other options than to attack these areas.
The reason why I think most in the West would not count the Israeli soldiers as "prisoners of war" is because:
1) No formal declaration of war has been declared (that I am aware of).
2) Hamas is not fighting in uniform and is indistinguishable from civilians. Traditionally, in Western culture, any non-uniformed enemy combatants captured were immediately executed. (Thinking economically, this provides good incentives not to fight out of uniform.) An example of this is German agents captured in the US during World War II.
3) Hezbollah, like Al Queda, does not represent a national government and does not have territory they are trying to defend. This makes them a particularly nasty opponent, because this makes them very difficult to fight against.
Having said that, there is a question of when does a group have legitimacy as an army? I'm not completely sure how to answer that question, but I don't see Hezbollah or any other terrorist organization fitting the bill.
As far as the US keeping POWs in Gitmo, as I understand international law, there are no POWs at Gitmo. POW status is reserved for uniformed enemy combatants, not non-uniformed ones. I think they should be treated humanely, but not given POW status. This legitimizes non-uniformed combat and sets up a dangerous precedent.
As far as Israel taking out the Iraqi nuclear plant in the 80s, I am afraid to say I am glad they did. I don't trust Iran or Iraq to use their weapons in ways that the West would consider rational. (That is not to say that they are not rational, merely that they follow a set of incentives completely foreign to Westerners.) As "Thought" commented, many of the major Arab powers around Israel have stated the complete destruction of Israel as one of their prime objectives. I think they are willing to sacrifice a significant percentage of their population to achieve this goal. For Iran or Iraq to get their hands on nuclear weapons would probably spell the end of Israel and a significant destabalization in the world economy. You can call this might is right if you want, but in this case, I believe those with the might are the ones in the right. Also, I cannot blame Israel for taking actions in the interest of their own survival. Almost any nation or individual would do the same. As you said, we all follow self-interest.
You bring up some excellent questions about the US government's moral compass with respect to Pakistan. I don't have any easy answers for that and you are much more acutely informed about the consequences of the economic sanctions. Unfortunately, economic policy is weilded more like a club than a surgeon's instrument and often does more damage than intended and hurts innocents while people in power are left unaffected.
As far as the US waiving the sanctions after our war with Afghanistan started, I understand this. Our need to expediently wage war outweighed the support for democracy as a national priority. I don't say this is good, but from a self-interest standpoint, it is understandable. Ceteris paribus, the US supports democracy. However, everything is not always equal and sometimes other national interests outweigh other interests.
You bring up an interesting point about the US supporting the political machinery for democracy in Palestine. Do you have any suggestions for how this could be facilitated? I think it is a noble goal if it could be done in a way that does not lend support to organizations considered to be 'terrorist".
You also mentioned the US stance on nuclear weapons. I look at this from being motivated by a combination of self-interest and principles with a blur between the two. Basically, the US and Europe don't like it when other nations get nuclear weapons. They particularly don't like it when non-Western nations get nukes. They like it even less when non-democracies get them. And worst of all is when dictatorships get them. India falls into the non-Western category. Pakistan into the non-Western, non-democracy. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc. would fall into the dictatorship category and ones which show strong evidence of being willing to use them to start wars and not just in defense. Israel would fit into the Western democracy category and therefore is the least bad from a Western perspective. While it's not politically correct, it does explain the actions and attitudes of the US and other Western nations.
I do think that nations act in ways that are complex. Some behavior is motivated by principles, some by self-interest, some by pure selfishness. I think the US often tries to be principled, but when it conflicts with self-interest, it tends towards self-interest, like any other nation is prone to do. I agree with you that, ceteris paribus, self-interest is the best way to analyze international relations. As econ students, we should ask is there a better way to align principles with self-interest? I'd also have to ask if they are not in alignment right now? What principles are feasible to support?
I'll have to think some more on the incentives facing Hezbollah. They may have something to loose, but I still think they are able to transfer much of the cost of their actions to others. If so, they face lowered costs for destructive activities and, as we learned in Walter Williams's class, we can expect more destructive behavior from them than if they bore the costs themselves. This is why non-uniformed combatants without geographical ties are so dangerous and why nations try to eliminate them when threatening them. Perfectly in-line with self-interest and rational behavior.
Brian: there are many things you said that I disagree with, but given our almost mutually exclusive priors, I don't see how we can come to a neat agreement quickly. However, let me just say that there is a huge mass of people who disagree with what you say, and a huge mass that disagrees with what I said. I strongly feel that the Israeli government is taking morally reprehensible actions in the Middle East currently, just as you feel the same about Hezbollah and Hamas. I also believe that it is hypocritical for Western governments to support the right of "Western democracies" to nukes, as if they and only they are capable of using nukes responsibly. BTW, both Russia and China are dictatorships, or at least, as much dictatorships as at least Iran is, and I see neither those countries using nukes irresponsibly, nor the US doing much about it. Like I said earlier, self-interest implies going after weaker non-democracies only, and that's what the Western-lead international community does.
Oops, sorry, didn't mean to stoke the debate again. Let's get back to Snowdon and Romer now shall we? =P Touche!
Sareer-e-Khama: Whoever you are, I appreciate your comments and agree with almost everything you have said. However, Brian is a good friend, and a good person, and I'd be grateful if you'd keep your comments free of rhetoric. We must appreciate that different people have different perspectives and tradition, and be calm and considerate when engaging in discussion with them. Thank you.
Ali, thank you very much for your kind words. I sincerely appreciate them. I'd also love to get together with you sometime after we get past our prelims and try to understand each others views better.
Sareer-e-khama, thanks for your comments. I appreciate you sharing a different perspective from my own and hope we can learn from one another. As Ali said, we are coming from two very different perspectives with very differnt priors.
If I gave the impression that I think the US and Western nations are the only ones to take principled actions, I sincerly apologize. That is not at all what I meant to convey nor do I believe that to be true.
What I meant to say is that political systems without checks and balances offer more power to people in office than more limited forms of governments. This in turn tends to attract some of the worst power-hungry individuals into power and then does not restrict their abuse of power. This is not at all a matter of cultural or moral superiority of any people, but because of checks and balances in a given political system. There is a whole branch of economics related to the study of political systems called Public Choice that studies these issues.
Nazi Germany and World War II Japan are good examples of countries that transitioned from brutal regimes into peaceful democracies. The nature of the people did not change at all, but the rules of their political system did. A change in governmental structure made a tremendous impact on how their nations related to others. Less restricted governments have been shown to be more prone to extreme behavior and human rights abuses than more restricted ones. (Contrast North and South Korea as an example.)
Also, I didn't say if you kill people while in uniform that it's okay. I was trying to describe the "rules" that much of the world has agreed to are that if you engage in combat without being in uniform, you are not protected by the many of the conventions dictating the treatment and classification of "prisoners of war". I'm not saying this is good or bad or comment on what "should be", but to observe what "is". It's not my logic, but international law as it exists today. (This may be changing in the US given recent decisions by our Supreme Court.)
I also did not mean to imply that all Arabs hate Jews or that all Jews hate Arabs. What is true is that some Arab leaders rhetorically proclaim the destruction of Israel as one of their intended goals. This seems to have large popularity within their nations.
If you think I am misinformed on any of this, I'd appreciate learning more about your perspective and understanding what we can learn from each other. I know I am not well informed on the history of the Middle East or the Arab-Israeli conflict.
To respond to Ali's comment about nuclear proliferation, Wikipedia has a list of nuclear armed states and, for the record, the US actively tried to discourage all of them (with the possible exception of the UK? -- I'm not sure) from developing them. This includes Russia, China, and even France. Russia's work was greatly aided by espionage on the US nuclear program and would have been much slower to develop had not several Americans sold nuclear secrets to them. As is true with any nation, the US has a natural affinity for other nations close to them culturally and politically. Other nations are the same. (See Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" for more on this.) For good or for ill, this creates a natural distrust for those different from ourselves. Again, I'm not trying to describe what "should be", but mere what "is". I agree with Ali that most of international politics typically boils down to a self-interest story.
Now, I better now follow Ali's example and get back to Snowdon and Romer!
Good debate.
I want to keep my arguments simple because this debate is quite extensive already.
I think the most difficult thing to ascertain is who started this war. The media suggests that it started with Hizbullah taking the 2 Israeli soldiers hostage. I, however beg to differ. Afterall, Israel somehow managed to have 1200 of Hamas Freedom fighters in custody. The obvious explanation is that this is part of an ongoing conflict that started when Britain decided to split Palestine into two states, Palestine and Israel post WWII.
It seems to me that Israel has taken advantage of this incident (2 soldiers taken hostage) and attack the democratically elected government in Lebanon. Afterall winning the elections in Lebanon provides legitimacy to a cause Israel has been hell-bent upon keeping illegitimate.
What I am driving at, basically, is that the current conflict is part of a bigger game by Israel to gain more influence in the area. We all know that the current military action wont do anything beneficial for the conflict, it will just escalate it further.
The other point I want to make is that we have to stop associating Guerilla warfare with terrorism. America is not considered a terrorist despite its invasion of Iraq, Israel is also considered a "a trusted member of the civilized world." What people on this forum have to realize is that Guerilla warfare is only done when one is weak and does not have the resources for non-guerilla warfare. The fact that you are militarily weak should not condemn you to be a terrorist.
This brings us to an interesting point. Why is Israel stronger than Palestine, why do they have the latest in American warfare technology, subs, nuclear arsenal etc.. etc.. .
It is also interesting to note that despite being so harshly treated (Holocaust and God knows what else), jews (Israel is a nation whose basis is religion, Pakistan is the only other such nation)have done rather well. I mean look at it, academically 50% of all our coursework is written by jews, majority of nobel laureates are jews, Mr. Goldman, Mr. Sachs, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Stanley, Mr. Lehmann, Mr. Weill, Mr. Wasserstein etc.. are all jews. I remember the chairman of Starbucks being pro-Zionist and funding many jew militant charities etc.. etc.. The point is that we have to stop looking at jews as a wronged race. They are the agressors in this world. Search Palestine on Wikipedia and look at the UN sanctioned land to Palestine, and the actual land accupied by Israel. They are wronging the Palestenians. Not the other way round.
Bassaam,
Thanks for the comments. I agree with you that at this point it is very difficult to untangle all of the damages done by both sides to each other. It is clear that both the Arabs and Israel feel as though atrocities have been committed against each other.
However, from my perspective, it seems like Hizbullah taking soldiers hostage during a tense situation tipped the situation past the crisis point. I am sure there are other perspectives on this and would appreciate it if you could help me to understand a different point of view. I have to admit that I don’t know the background of all the 1,200 Hamas prisoners and under what conditions they were captured.
With that being said, without the actions of Hizbullah in this specific instance, none of the current conflict would have happened. My guess is that you disagree with this. If you do, could you please help me to understand your perspective better?
I believe in the right of any country to defend itself against attacks across its borders. This includes kidnapping and actions against soldiers by almost any nation will be responded to with special attention and force. It is like when a police officer gets shot by a criminal. At that point, the criminal, regardless of the severity of their original crime, is considered a particular threat to humanity and the police will spare no expense or effort to bring them to justice. From an economic standpoint, this makes sense. If that criminal is allowed to escape, it signals to others that this type of behavior will be tolerated and leads to an overall degradation in the rule of law. The same holds for any law enforcement and/or military. For Hizbullah to have attacked Israeli soldiers was an act of war.
If you regard Hizbullah as legitimate Guerilla warriors, then in that light their actions certainly should be regarded as warfare. It is appropriate in these conditions for any country attacked by a foreign military to defend themselves with their own military. I regard this as what Israel is doing.
What I don’t understand is what Hizbullah is fighting for? In the past, they have claimed to want to annihilate Israel. Clearly, this is unacceptable to Israel. If that is no longer their goal, when did it change and what assurance can they give Israel this is no longer true?
At what point would you divide the line between Guerilla warfare and terrorism? I agree with you that it is difficult to find a universal definition, but I will try. Let me know what you think and why or why not you disagree Part of the distinction I would make is that Guerilla fighters target “hard targets” (militarily strategic) whereas terrorists target “soft targets” (militarily insignificant) with intent to maximize unsuspecting civilian casualties. Suicide bombers certainly fall under this definition nearly each and every time.
There are two explanations for why Israel is stronger and have the latest in technology. One is that they are aided by the US and other Western powers. This is undeniably true and the US generally regards Israel as an ally. They are similar in culture, customs, political organization (democracy), etc. They also share a similar value system (Judeo-Christian), meaning they share a similar worldview. I think this also explains why most of the Arab countries in the Middle East are united in their perspective against Israel.
The second explanation is that Israel’s economy is more developed than most of the Middle East. I’m studying for my PhD in economics in order to try to understand better why different countries have different levels of wealth. I’ve traveled around the world and am heart-broken at the disparity their seems to be between nations. While there are many levels of complexity to the explanations of these differences, a large factor that most economists agree on is the “rule of law” (limited government and predictable legal outcomes) and strong property rights. These both seem to compliment and be complimented by both democracy and capitalism. Both of these factors are lower in varying degrees in many Middle Eastern countries than they are in Israel.
(Timur Kuran (economics professor at USC) discusses differences in inheritance laws between Muslim and Christian countries as a significant factor in economic development. My understanding is that Muslims historically have divided their wealth amongst their heirs after they die (diluting capital), whereas Christians and Jews historically have left their estates to their oldest sons (allowing for accumulation of capital). I’m not sure how much of an impact this has overall, but it is a fascinating concept. He goes on to contrast the legal constructions of Islamic Waqfs vs. Western corporations and how they “play out” both legally and economically.)
As far as the Jews, being a wronged race, I do think that they certainly have undergone lots of persecution historically (with Nazi Germany being the most horrific example). They have proven to be a very resilient people and are perhaps unique in the world in this regard – constant persecution and yet economic success. I attribute a large part of this to their cultural affinity towards thrift and education. They are also not any more immune to committing wrongful acts than any other people group. I have visited the Dachau concentration camp in Germany, the Holocaust museum in Washington, DC, studied World War II extensively during my undergraduate years, and have met Holocaust survivors. The Jewish people will always have my sympathy for what happened to them during World War II.
Having said this, that doesn’t give them any right to violate the rights of others. I can understand them being extra vigilant against hatred against them, given their history. I can also understand (and do not excuse) how this could lead them to over-react to certain hostile actions against them. (I liken it to a person who has been abused in the past and now reacts strongly to any form of aggression against them.) You said that Jews “are the aggressors in this world”. Could you elaborate more on what you mean by that? I’ve heard some people claim they are responsible for all the wars in the world, 9/11, etc. I don’t think this is what you mean, is it?
As far as Israel wronging the Palestinians or vice-versa, I think both sides have committed wrongful acts against each other. As long as a principle of eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth is held by both sides, no peace will ever come to that region.
Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite economists, has written a book entitled “Quest for Cosmic Justice” in which he describes how people always want to make up for injustices for the past. Yet in order to do so, we would have to have perfect power, knowledge, and wisdom in order to accomplish this goal. No one on earth has this capability. As long as we try to pursue this type of path, we will always end in conflict. Certainly courts and law enforcement should exist to deal with specific cases when one individual is directly harm another individual. However, when we try to extend the reach of justice to account for the sins of a large group of people against another, it becomes too entangled for any human being to be able to sort out. The passage of time complicates this further and the passing of generations makes it absolutely impossible. All people, races, and nations have been both conquered and have conquered others. All of us can claim to have relatives and ancestors who have been victims of terrible acts against them. How do you draw the line between what is acceptable to react against and what is not?
My assertion throughout my argument was that taking 2 soldiers is NOT a tipping point because it is a 60 year long fight. Because, though we can't value 2 soldier's lives, they are immaterial in such a long war. Had Israel pursued diplomatic means for those soldiers nobody would have felt anything is adrift. Basically, Israel is encashing on this kidnapping to find a political excuse to further its aims. In essence, the kidnapping wasn't a cause it was a reaction (reaction to 1200 captive soldiers). Blaming the escalation on hizbullah is unfair. I mean, you argue that had Hizbullah not taken the two soldiers then…., I can similarly argue if Israel did not have captive Hizbullah warriors then… . If you keep following the sequence you will reach WWII when Israel was created.
Your police example doesn’t hold, because you have equated hizbullah to a criminal. Just replace Israel as the criminal and Hizbullah as the police man in your example and it suggests something completely different.
“I don’t understand what Hizbullah is fighting for?” is a very fair comment. Muslim struggle tends to get lost in rhetoric which is a direct result of lack of education in general amongst the muslim population. Hizbullah is fighting for multiple things, freedom from Israeli persecution, freedom to establish economy without threat and most importantly access to its promised land. Please do search up Palestine on wikipedia it will tell you in two maps the injustice. First map will show UN sanctioned land, second map will show actual occupied land by Israel. Considering that Palestine was split to form Israel (which in itself is a unique example) it is ridiculous that Israel has more than its share of land.
The last thing you have pointed on is my comment that Israelis are aggressors. My point might feel similar to that of many conspiracy theorists, but you can’t deny facts. Did you know that Israel is the only country a US national can be a dual national with (check your passport if you don’t believe me). My question is, why is America pro-Israel and pro jew? Mind you I am implying that America is more than an ally to Israel. America does not offer similar support to any other country, not UK, not Australia, not Pakistan, but Israel. What does Israel give in return? What has Israel done to make America want to support it? You can’t find any economic rationale, just political. Because America serves the interest of the jews. Look at it, Pakistan has fought two wars for America (Against Russia and creating Taliban in the process, and the current war on terror), what has Israel done? Except be an economic burden on the American taxpayer.
And look at jews, they are everywhere it is almost impossible. At times I tend to believe they are maybe a superior race. They are so few of them, and if the Holocaust is to be believed, millions have died. Yet they are the most powerful people in the world. Look at Investment Banks, all good ones are jews. Read up on Rothschilds. Look at the largest Private Equity firms, jewish. The top media barons, Steven Spielberg, Robert Murdoch and Jerry Seinfeld, all jew. I mean you take any field of influence and jews will be the most powerful. They seem coordinated and with a purpose.
I don’t begrudge them, if you can take advantage then do. Might is right etc.. etc… But I do think we should not confuse the issue. There seems a lot of jewish sympathy over the current conflict, people actually blame hizbullah only. I want people to see who the aggressor is. Who has the unfair advantage.
One more thing, jews attack more civilians then Hizbullah, even in the current conflict they have been bombing Lebanese towns. It is just sad, it is literally a tank versus a foot soldier situation.
I agree with your last paragraph entirely, but you do realize that the pascifist will always end up the loser, if Hizbullah cuts its losses now, it ends up with 20% of the country it was before WWII.
There are also some questions I feel someone as knowledgeable as yourself should research. What is the average income of jews vs. all other religions? Why does America support Israel so single-mindedly? When Israel was created at the end WWII was it created just so you could have an ally in the middle of muslim population to create constant conflict and not allow muslims of the region to expand?
Oh yeah, (I am actually rereading your write-up) read the following link. It might work from USA http://bassaam.blogspot.com/2005/07/word-terrorism.html
Bassaam,
Thanks again for your comments and sorry to take so long replying. I think it is fair to say that both sides do not evaluate the conflict solely on the events of the past month. To say that Israel should not respond the way it is because of the kidnapping of two soldiers (current events only) and yet trace the conflict back to World War II to understand Hizbullah’s actions (current and historical events) is not evaluating both sides in the same light. It’s important to understand the historical background for all of this. From Israel’s perspective, withdrawing from Lebanon in 2000 is what emboldened Hizbullah into a stronger force. I can understand that they may feel they need to meet this action of kidnapping with such force that they hope it will provide a deterrent for any similar actions in the future. I’m not seeking to justify their current actions with this explanation, but to understand them.
In my police example, I was trying to describe Israel’s perception. You are correct that the analogy implies something completely different if you look at Hizbullah as the police and Israel as the criminal. I think that hits the crux of the difficulties in this situation. Certainly Hizbullah and Israel have a different perception of present and historical events and that’s what complicates all of human affairs. Two parties each have separate priors – differing beliefs, objectives, behaviors, etc – as well as facing entirely differing sets of information. This creates entirely differing perceptions and interpretations of events. I think one of the issues in the Middle East today is that the perspectives between Muslims and the Israelis seem to be irreconcilable. I don’t know that I truly believe this, but it seems as though this is the case.
You mentioned that Hizbullah is fighting for freedom from Israeli persecution and access to the Promised Land. I looked at the maps you referred to on Wikipedia. I need to look into the history of this more. Does this tell the entire story? From what I also read in Wikipedia, the map of the original division of land was accepted by Israel, but rejected by all Arab powers. After the initial creation of Israel, the Arab powers attacked Israel in the “Six Days War”. Note that this is before Israel’s borders increased beyond the original intention. (Please correct me if I am wrong. My history and knowledge is very limited.) Assuming this is true and Israel captured lands after the Arabs initiated conflict, then it puts things in an entirely different context. Land has always been one of the spoils of war. That is how virtually every nation in existence today had its borders and demographics determined. (I’m not saying this is good or just, but pointing out that this is the way the world is.) If Israel captured the land of an aggressor, should the land be given back and if so, at what point? Think from Israel’s perspective. If you were surrounded by people who were committed to attacking you and were able to secure a boundary of “safe zones” around your nation, would you be eager to give the land back until you could be absolutely secure in your safety?
What I don’t understand is why groups like Hizbullah use tactics like suicide bombings against unsuspecting civilians if their true goal is freedom from persecution, access to the Promised Land, and economic development? These types of tactics runs counter to all three of those goals in many ways. It destroys public opinion in the UN, US, and Israel against their cause. It (understandably) makes Israel more likely to close off access to these areas from potential suicide bombers. (The more these groups blend in with civilian populations, the more people will be deemed to be at risk and the more people will be denied access.) Trade breaks down and freedoms are destroyed because of their actions. Their continuance of these types of strategies destroys the probability of these goals being reached. To anyone from a Western mindset, these acts will always be considered to be terrorism. Particularly when apparently random soft targets are chosen. I wish they would employ other means to try to achieve their ends.
You ask a good question about why the US is an ally to Israel. From some perspectives, it is extremely costly to the US. You also mention that we don’t provide this type of support to any other nation. From a certain perspective this is true. From another, I’m not convinced. I don’t know of any other nation that is in a similar situation. America has certainly provided large support to South Korea and Vietnam (much larger support than we give to Israel), various Middle Eastern powers (not always in a good way), etc. I think there are a variety of factors involved – cultural similarity, strategic/military value (Israel is the only Western democracy in the region – and some Americans regard it as an outpost for freedom in the area), guilt over inaction during World War II, path dependency (we committed at one time in the past to support Israel for some reason and we feel to not support them anymore would be to betray an ally), etc. There is also probably some minor influence in the concept that there are a number of Jews in the US and they have some political power here. If that is true, it is an extremely small influence, in my opinion. Many Jews here are more left-leaning politically and it is the right-leaning people who tend to be more pro-Israel. Another factor, that has probably become even stronger after September 11th, is that many Americans probably feel that to not support Israel would be giving in to terrorists and increase the risk of future terrorism around the world. There is also an undercurrent of religious support from many Christians for Israel, which leads to increased support. Believe it or not, but the Christian influence to support Israel is far, far greater than the Jewish influence.
You mentioned the disproportionate civilian casualties between the two sides. The perception in the US is that this is because Hizbullah hides in civilian areas and blends in with the civilian population. If they are doing this, then most Americans (and other Westerners) would assign primary responsibility for those deaths to Hizbullah (perceiving them as using them as “human shields”).
I read your post on terrorism you linked to and while I don’t fully agree with everything you say, it is very well written and given me some things to think about. I disagree that the word “terrorism” has no meaning however. Perhaps it is analogous to what a US Supreme Court Justice once said about pornography: “I can’t definite it, but I know it when I see it.” Wikipedia has an article on the “Definition of Terrorism” . While I can agree that the definition is controversial and it may be overused, I still think it has strong meaning. The definition on Wikipedia I liked the best (widely used by social scientists) said this:
“Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought," (Schmid, 1988).
Would you accept this as a working definition and if not, why not? If one were using this as a definition, do you think Hizbullah would or would not fit into this definition?
Again, thanks for your comments and for challenging me to look into this further.
Brian:
Thank you for your reply.
I agree Hizbullah's approach to the conflict does not work to their advantage.
At this point I feel we probably need to structure this debate further for it to be constructive to furthering our understanding of the situation.
I feel we disagree on some basic assumptions of this debate, and I feel we should discuss them further.
From my POV I feel that you are incorrect in your assesment of jewish influence and power in present world politics. If we keep on having differing views on it, we will obviously lead to different results. I also feel your definition of terrorism is wrong (What struck me first was that it was written by a jew, that however is not the basis of my rejection of it).
I would like to structure and research my arguments further on the aforementioned two issues (definition and jew influence) and post. I might take a few days. If you feel the debate should be argued on other assumptions I may be taking for granted we can discuss them also.
I also thank you for making me think out my perspective deeply.
Also I would like to provide some background to myself. I am an Investment Banker working in Karachi, I have read Economics and Computer Science in my Bsc (Hons.) degree from LUMS. I am muslim, and I make an effort to approach this debate with an open mind.
So far I know your christian and doing your PhD in Econ from George Mason. But not much else.
Bassaam,
Sounds good to me! I think you focused on the main issue we are facing right now – we both have differing basic assumptions – some we might not even be aware we have. Let’s both try to help each other to point out our differing assumptions we see them. Cool?
I have two big tests coming up – one on August 15th and the other on August 17th. I may be a bit slow in responding between now and then, but will definitely follow up with any posts or e-mails you send. (A link to my e-mail is at the top of my blog.)
Let’s see – I’m trying to think what background to give you about myself. I’m a Christian, American, working on my PhD in Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. My bachelor’s degree is in Mechanical Engineering from Virginia Tech. I also have a Masters in Business Administration from the University of Florida.
I worked for 11 years as an engineer before deciding to return to work on my PhD. I’ve traveled a lot (7 continents, 29 countries, and 45 (out of 50) US states so far) and have experienced and interacted with many different cultures. I worked for a Japanese company for 6 years. My travels are part of what inspired me to come back to school. I’m very heartbroken at the differences in material prosperity between nations and want to try to understand why this is and learn how to try to improve this situation and reduce poverty.
I love to learn and also approach our debate with an open mind. I came across a post on another blog the other day that said part of wisdom is “strong opinions, weakly held”/ I want to learn as much as I can from our dialogue and appreciate your willingness to discuss this with me.
Post a Comment