[Dan Halberstein]

Keen eagle-eyed Middle-East watchers hereabouts had much to say (on all sides) regarding this summer's conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

In the spirit of the season, I think it's appropriate to start this thread with a call to all, myself included, for civility, among ourselves. I do mean to discuss events, not bulletin-board personalities.

That said: Israel did not, in fact, annex the lower third of Lebanon, thirsty for the waters of the Litani. Hezbollah (Hizballah, if you prefer - I've used both spellings,) has gone on to re-arm as extensively as possible, and may have been complicit in the death of Pierre Gemayel. Nevertheless, the unarmed factions in Lebanese politics have counselled restraint, and from what little I know, restraint has been the order of the day. Perhaps it was not Hezbollah, or Syria, or any of the usual suspects; perhaps there's a surviving Franjieh left, or someone Gemayel owed money to. Who knows.... but the speculation at this point indicates Damascus, and in Lebanon, Syria means Hezbollah.

To the south, Fatah and Hamas have actually come to the point of scattered armed conflict; but today a minor accord was agreed to between Olmert (of Israel) and Abbas (of Fatah); optimists are suggesting the agreement points toward a revival of peace talks.

We've all seen the "brink of civil war" becoming "civil war" in the media depiction of Iraq; to what extent do these events and reactions signal averted civil wars elsewhere in the region? Or are they merely other brinks?

I'm fully aware that in the Middle East, by the time a given individual reads this post, all hopeful signs may have vanished... but for the time being: What do we make of them?

Dan

[Wendy Sloan]

Dan --

There's a very interesting essay (actually, it was a speech given in Tel Aviv on 11/3/06 at the Rabin memorial ceremony) by David Grossman, in this week's The New York Review of Books -- January 11, 2007 issue (just came in the mail last week).

[Alder Ellis]

Yes, Dan, the Grossman piece is very impressive, if you can find it. Olmert was present at the Rabin ceremony when Grossman made the speech, & one imagines it must have been an electrifying moment, Grossman challenging Olmert (and Israel) in such a morally trenchant way.

Grossman's message was perhaps something like: Israel has (tragically) become part of the problem; it needs to become part of the solution.

[Dan Halberstein]

For anybody else who'd like to read these interesting remarks:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19770

Wendy, the recent halting steps seem made as if in response, particularly to his call to deal with the moderates among Palestinians... of course, Grossman goes on to call for every peace offer to be taken seriously. I wonder if Olmert would meet with Assad, as the author says, "that very day," if the offer emerged.

Thanks for pointing me to this.


D

[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:
Israel did not, in fact, annex the lower third of Lebanon, thirsty for the waters of the Litani. Hezbollah (Hizballah, if you prefer - I've used both spellings,) has gone on to re-arm as extensively as possible, and may have been complicit in the death of Pierre Gemayel.

Dan,

If you're going to go on about "the spirit of civility" (may she descend a la Mary Poppins down your chimney, o Scrooge), you might want to not launch immediately into the spin. After all, the converse of the above statement is something like Hizballah did not, in fact, obliterate the state of Israel, thirsty for (pick one) A). human blood, B). revenge, C). justice, D). real estate, E).72 virgins, F). all of the above. Israel has gone on to re-arm as extensively as possible, and may have been complicit in the death of (insert name here).

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride, but just because the beggars aren't currently riding doesn't mean that they don't want to.

However, on the civil end, the Grossman article is really good, this quote in particular:

Perhaps, Mr. Prime Minister, I need to remind you that if any Arab leader sends out signals of peace, even the slightest, most hesitant ones, you must respond. You must immediately test his sincerity and seriousness. You have no moral right not to respond. You must do so for the sake of those who will be expected to sacrifice their lives if another war breaks out. So if President Assad says that Syria wants peace, even if you don't believe him—and we're all suspicious—you must propose a meeting that very same day. Don't wait a single day longer. After all, when you set out on the last war you didn't wait for even an hour. You charged in with all our might. With every weapon we have. With all our power to destroy. Why, when there is some sort of flicker of peace, do you immediately reject it, dismiss it? What do you have to lose? Are you suspicious of the Syrian president? Go offer him terms that will reveal his trickery. Offer him a peace process lasting several years, only at the end of which, if he meets all the conditions, lives up to all the restrictions, will he get the Golan Heights. Force him into a process of ongoing dialogue. Act so that his people will be made aware of the possibility, help the moderates, who must exist there as well. Try to shape reality, not to be its collaborator. That's why you were elected. Precisely for that reason.

[Dick Morgan]

Why is it always Israel's obligation to turn itself inside out to accommodate those that would push them into the sea?

[Dan Halberstein]

Kevin, as regards what you perceive as initial spin, I do have to argue the point. Applying "the converse" to differing cases does not always ferret out spin when the result is an absurdist statement on one side, and a commonly discussed statement on the other. Sometimes a difference in the two parties concerned produces the possibility of making a statement of one side, which you would not make of the other.

For example: the converse of "Hezbollah has rearmed" would indeed be "Israel has rearmed." But this only has meaning if a) you believe that Hezbollah, not the elected officials, are the government of Lebanon; or b)you believe Israel is not a lawfully constituted sovereign state, which in fact has a military. Otherwise you are comparing a sovereign state to a group of individuals, a militia, a terrorist group, a "freedom front," or whatever you want to call this entity which is not a government.

The second bit of the statement you find fault with is my mention of Israel not occupying Southern Lebanon, which was a possibility posited during last summer's hostilities. None posited, however, that the recent hostilities would end with Hezbollah obliterating Israel. Therefore, it is not as easy to say "despite claims that Hezbollah would obliterate Israel," since nobody claimed that would be the outcome of this summer's hostilities.

So, I do stipulate to my assumptions: That Israel is a sovereign state, and Hezbollah is not; and that some voiced the opinion that Israel really wanted to re-occupy Lebanon this summer, whereas none voiced the opinion that Hezbollah would obliterate Israel during that span of time.

Any way, on the civil part indeed!

In response to you, Kevin - yes, it is definitely a good read, and I see this guy's point of view as valid if not nuanced. That's pretty much how I see the Israeli right's point of view as well, and I've drifted centerward myself. I see signing on to peace talks as like the sign on the car dealership: "No reasonable offer refused." But just as you can not waltz into the Chrysler dealership and offer ten dollars for a PT Cruiser, you can not offer -- for example -- to sit down with Israel and accept unconditional surrender (for instance,) and expect to be taken seriously. However, as the author says, if Assad does call tomorrow, I too believe it is in Olmert's and Israel's interests to follow up within the day as well. I do not, however, agree that they are morally compelled to, but this distinction arises from an international sovereignty rights point of view.

To wit, I can not in sincerity impute to Israel moral obligations which are not obligations for any other sovereign state -- so I think of peace talks as wise rather than obligated.

Dick, I understand your point of view, but (even) I would watch out for it. Here I am in the middle of the road, with the yellow stripes and dead armadillos, but, the author is right. To get to a peace worth having is worth pursuing; and there is no way to know for sure such a peace is impossible.

But I would be cautious in its pursuit as well.

Anyway, that's just me. Other opinions? ELEANOR! ITEM! The Middle East....

Dan McLaughlin

[Alder Ellis]

Dan, you write, "I can not in sincerity impute to Israel moral obligations which are not obligations for any other sovereign state -- so I think of peace talks as wise rather than obligated"

This in refutation of Grossman's " Perhaps, Mr. Prime Minister, I need to remind you that if any Arab leader sends out signals of peace, even the slightest, most hesitant ones, you must respond. . . . You have no moral right not to respond. You must do so for the sake of those who will be expected to sacrifice their lives if another war breaks out."

The moral obligation Grossman invokes is towards the victims in any future war, & presumably he has in mind mainly the Israeli victims: it's an obligation the Israeli leader owes to Israel, not to any enemy. So your objection doesn't really apply.

But in any case don't you find any irony in the proposition that a nation should not take a higher moral ground than that of its enemies? If my neighbor is a criminal, do I need to become a criminal in order to keep it fair between us? The dynamics of inter-national "sovereignty" exert a powerful pull in that direction, no doubt, & this is what makes war possible.

Dan, you write, "I see this guy's point of view as valid if not nuanced." Well, how patronizing of you. Grossman struck me as having real vision, a real passion for what he was saying. Political discourse is deadening for the most part but every once in a while there's an oasis.

[Dan Halberstein]

AE, Grossman's delivered a fine speech, with which I agree on many points. It's also a better feeling to say I'm wholeheartedly with this guy, but it's just not true. It might sound patronizing, but I don't think his formulation holds up as policy, though as a call to policy, it is movingly stated. If that's still patronizing, I can't do much about it. That's just how I see it. He's also in a better position to speak his mind than I; I have lost nobody close in the recent war, and he has buried a son.

And especially given the context in which Grossman made his remarks, you are exactly right; he was speaking of saving future Israeli lives. His vision and passion are fine, but I am not sure one can use the details of his prescription without modification in the real world.

AE, there is nothing wrong with choosing to take a higher ground than one's enemies. But there also seems to be no reward thus far for doing so, and the perception that Israel is obligated to take a higher moral ground strikes me as having been a liability in terms of realpolitik thus far. To the extent that Israel is urged to expand this expectation, I see this advice as having built-in pitfalls; to the extent that Grossman is interpreted as talking Israeli-to-Israeli about how things should be, I see the advice as less harmful. But Grossman is not, after all, the PM.

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited December 28, 2006).]

[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:
So, I do stipulate to my assumptions: That Israel is a sovereign state, and Hezbollah is not; and that some voiced the opinion that Israel really wanted to re-occupy Lebanon this summer, whereas none voiced the opinion that Hezbollah would obliterate Israel during that span of time.

Dan,

It's generally been my experience that the only times the words "sovereign state" and "sovereign nation" are tossed around is when the question of sovereignity is open to debate, even if there are of course some folk who will not be conceding any ground.

My general checklist of what makes a "sovereign" anything is, beyond the initial requirement of not being listed as a protectorate/colony/occupied-what-have-you, a country needs to have the following:

0. A name, a flag and a chunk of real estate. (Israel: check)
1. Consistent depiction on maps and globes by other countries' mapmakers. (Israel: check)
2. Some variety of army with actual uniforms. (Israel: check)
3. An Olympic team. (Israel: check)
4. Recognition by the other places that satisfy the above requirements. (Israel: um... Does "Everyone but a bunch of the neighbors" count?)

Hezbollah? Well, if they took the southern third of Jordan and started calling it "Hezbollahstan" or something along those lines, they'd be on their way, but really, it's apples and oranges. Hezbollah, regardless of whether you like it or not or recognize it, is not a nation but a political party, so the name-game isn't "sovereign" but "legitimate."

There is also a vast gulf between "wanting" something and actually accomplishing it--unless of course you're George Bush, the situation is Iraq, and your mind is a Whitman's Sampler of delusions*. Oddly, while I think Hezbollah really did want to destroy Israel last summer, and some of their members actually believed they were going to do it (you can generally get some people to believe in anything), I seriously doubt most of them honestly expected to do it or are currently waving "Mission Accomplished!" banners.

*(dark, light, fruity or just plain nuts)