Crunchy Con

Proportionality is madness

Tuesday July 25, 2006

Richard Cohen speaks truth in today's WaPo. Excerpt:The dire consequences of proportionality are so clear that it makes you wonder if it is a fig leaf for anti-Israel sentiment in general. Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows...
Advertisement
Comments
MNW
July 25, 2006 8:35 PM

Where's the line?

Why don't you just advocate that Israel nuke Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and the rest of the Arab world?

That is what you're advocating...whether you admit it or not.

You slap me, I will punch out your lights

You slap me...and I'll turn the other cheek...and have you slap that one as well...see who the world turns to with empathy and support.>

David J. White
July 25, 2006 8:48 PM

You slap me...and I'll turn the other cheek.

With regard to the Arab/Muslim world, this is probably the most knee-slappingly hilarious thing I've read in a long time. The day that the Arabs/Muslims "turn the other cheek", then we can worry about this; as it is now, that's within the realm of science fiction.

If the world really "turns with empathy and support" to people who are committed to the destruction of Israel and who resort to missiles and suicide bombers, then the world can go perform an anatomically impossible act on itself.

I agree with Richard Cohen. Israel should punch out the lights of anyone who attacks it. And if that leads to Israel's nuking of Lebananon, Syria, Iran, and the rest of the Arab world [though Iran is not part of the Arab world, but I digress], then so much the better.>

Josh
July 25, 2006 8:50 PM

MNW, I think you are greatly mistaken if you think that the rest of the world is going to give Israel sympathy for "turning the other cheek". Radical islamists who advocate their elimination from the earth would like nothing better than for Israel not to defend herself.>

Michael Simpson
July 25, 2006 9:06 PM
http://thereformclub.org

"After the Holocaust, after 1,000 years of mayhem and murder, the only proportionality that counts is zero for zero. If Israel's enemies want that, they can have it in a moment."

This is exactly right. What's disproportionate in this whole set of conflicts is that if the various Arab/Islamic countries and groups around Israel were to decide that they no longer were going to attack it, they would have nothing to fear from the Israelis. Israel is not going to invade Syria in order to conquer Damascus or Egypt to take Cairo. Israel's enemies want to destroy it; Israel wants not to be destroyed, not to destroy its neighbors.>

MNW
July 25, 2006 9:11 PM

Israel wants not to be destroyed, not to destroy its neighbors.

Then why is Israel destroying it's neighbor?>

Tom Tomberg
July 25, 2006 9:18 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

I agree that "turning the other cheek" to terrorists is poor statecraft.

Still, MNW's other point was correct: "Where's the line? Why don't you just advocate that Israel nuke Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and the rest of the Arab world?"

Cohen fails to mention any actual details about Israel's action, so his point, while useful in theory, can't be taken automatically to apply to the current situation.>

MNW
July 25, 2006 9:22 PM

I think you are greatly mistaken if you think that the rest of the world is going to give Israel sympathy for "turning the other cheek".

Oh? I think you are greatly mistaken.

Do you recall the world's reaction immediately after September 11? I've never witnessed such empathy and support on such a grand scale as I did then. Millions of empathetic and sympathetic people marched in cities around the world in support of the United States. US agression and pre-emptive war have whittled that away to nothing...and left in it's place is nothing but hatred and animosity for the US.


Radical islamists who advocate their elimination from the earth would like nothing better than for Israel not to defend herself.

Israel is not defending herself. Israel is attacking it's innocent neighbor. Hezbollah is not Lebanon, yet Israel is attacking Lebanon.

Do you think it self defense for the US to attack Iraq? If so, the US is defending itself from Iraq's __________ capability. (fill in the blank)>

MNW
July 25, 2006 9:24 PM

David J. White,

Read much?>

Rod Dreher
July 25, 2006 9:58 PM

So Israel and the US are only entitled to the world's sympathy when we are being attacked, and our citizens are dying? And the moment we start to fight back, we become evil? This is a bizarre moral inversion, and unfortunately typical of the left, which has a weakness for sympathizing with those illiberal forces that would destroy it if given half a chance.>

Tom Tomberg
July 25, 2006 10:14 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

Rod: "the moment we start to fight back, we become evil?"

As I pointed out above, the two problems with Cohen's argument are (1) this can be used to justify _anything_ done to advance Israel's security, no matter how unproductive or immoral, and (2) because Cohen fails to mention any actual details about Israel's action, his point, while useful in theory, can't be taken automatically to apply to the current situation.

Instead, you chose to address the argument, which not a single person on the thread has defended, that Jesus' teachings apply to this situation.

Rod: "This is a bizarre moral inversion, and unfortunately typical of the left"

Sadly typical of the right is a tendency to ignore good arguments and target blasts of rage at lesser arguments that are advanced by very very few. (Think, for example, of the celebrity achieved by third-rate academic Ward Churchill, an anti-hero to the right, justly ignored by everyone else).>

Joey
July 25, 2006 10:27 PM

I feel the need to comment, so that SOMEONE agrees with Rod...

I don't know the exact point at which Israel's action becomes "too extreme," but I disagree with the assertion that it can't use any more military force than it's enemy; I mean, come on, practically speaking, that's ridiculous, and basically asking that the two sides agree to fight forever.

I think people tend to forget that in a war, things are not easy or perfect; yes, civilians will die, and the "good" side may do bad things, etc. And of course Israel should do the best it can to prevent civilian casualties (which, of course, is the polar opposite of its enemies' priorities). I am not a military analyst, and therefore cannot say what is "too much" here; but I think that, against an enemy like Hezbullah, force is necessary. Perhaps even better---if you can do a lot of damage quickly, it may save a long, Iraq-like situation and save lives in the long run.

I would also like to point out that what Israel is doing is just like what America did in Afghanistan. Did the Taliban bomb us? No, al-Quaida did. But the Taliban was a terrorist state, which both actively supported al-Quaida and turned a blind eye to them. This seems to be the case with Lebanon. Hopefully, Israel will clean out the terrorists in the south and then Lebanon will step up to secure the area; at least, that's what I pray occurs.

God bless!>

watsy
July 25, 2006 10:41 PM

Hezbollah isn't the neighbor, but the Lebanese government hasn't done anything about Hezbollah. When Israel left Lebanon, Lebanon agreed to disarm Hezbollah. Hezbollah has become stronger. What does Lebanon want to do about it? They want Israel to cease-fire and negotiate for a prisoner exchange with Hezbollah.

We are responsible for what our citizens do within our borders. What would Canada do if a group from Michigan started firing rockets into Canadian towns and the US government wasn't willing to disarm them or prosecute them?

Canadians are really nice people. I bet that would push the limits of their patience.

It's really similar to the situation that we had in Afghanistan. The USA gave the Taliban more time to take care of the problem and turn Bin Laden over than Israel seemed to give Lebanon. Really, that's the only criticism that I can direct at Israel, but it's likely that the leaders of Israel and Lebanon talked before the strikes.

Deterrence doesn't seem to work with terrorist networks because they don't seem to care about civilian populations. The goal comes first(destroy Israel or destroy the west) and civilians come second.>

watsy
July 25, 2006 10:45 PM

Sorry, Joey. I was typing before you posted.

Great point about Afghanistan!>

simon
July 25, 2006 11:21 PM

As for Europe, who today cries for the Greeks of Anatolia or the Germans of Bohemia?

Well, I carry no brief for Hezbollah or Hamas or their ilk, but I do cry for the Greeks of Anatolia. They got the shaft from the barbaric Turks.

I would also like to point out that what Israel is doing is just like what America did in Afghanistan. Did the Taliban bomb us? No, al-Quaida did. But the Taliban was a terrorist state, which both actively supported al-Quaida and turned a blind eye to them. This seems to be the case with Lebanon.

Poor analogy. The Taliban actively protected, sponsored, and was essentially interwined with Al Qaeda. Lebananon is a victim of Hezbollah, an unfortunate leftover from the days of Syrian control. The Lebanese have been able to toss the Syrians out, but they aren't strong enough to disarm/destroy Hezbollah, though most would like to.>

Basileus
July 26, 2006 12:30 AM

You slap me, I will punch out your lights.

I think the operating word within this phrase, of which I mostly agree with is...your. It doesn't also mean bulldoze the building down, bomb the block, or nuke the city.


These calls for proportionality rankle...as ugly sentiments pregnant with antipathy toward the only state in the Middle East that is a democracy.

So according to Richard Cohen, as long as it's a democracy, it therefore has carte blanche to do anything it wants. Ummm OK...>

Basileus
July 26, 2006 12:34 AM

The Lebanese have been able to toss the Syrians out, but they aren't strong enough to disarm/destroy Hezbollah, though most would like to.

Umm, not really. The Syrians left, not because the Lebanese threw them out, but because their presence was making them look really bad and they didn't want sanctions slapped on them. Big difference there. Unfortunately, with Hezbollah, you can't use sanctions.

By the way...good luck with that lousy US peace plan...in finding any countries dumb enough to contribute troops to Lebanon. Last I heard though, the Egyptians and Turks were high up on the list...almost like a return to the 'good ole' days of the Ottomans and Mamelukes!>

god_is_in_the_tv
July 26, 2006 1:39 AM

I would also like to point out that what Israel is doing is just like what America did in Afghanistan.

Yes - birds of a matted, bloody feather do, in fact, flock together.>

Joseph D'Hippolito
July 26, 2006 3:09 AM

god_is_in_the_tv, at which mosque do you worship?>

watsy
July 26, 2006 5:21 AM

TV,
You really want to give all terrorists a pass. I don't understand why. What do you suppose Bin Laden would do if he ran our country? He wouldn't be on your side.>

HopeWithoutDogma
July 26, 2006 3:19 PM

A Catholic who denies one of the pillars of Just War theory, funny.>

Mark Shea
July 26, 2006 7:42 PM
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com

Proportionality is Church teaching.

Rod, you let yourself get stampeded into ignoring just war teaching once. Are you really going to let yourself get fooled twice?>

Josh
July 26, 2006 8:09 PM

Honest question here:
Is "Proportionality" in reference to intentended goal or actual accomplishments? If the actual intentions of Hezbollah is the complete destruction of Israel, is it proportional for Israel to retaliate with the complete destruction of Hezbollah? If it is in reference accomplishments, does Israel keep a tally of its citizens killed by Hezbollah and then use that tally to allow them to kill that many Hezbollah militiants?>

TM Lutas
July 28, 2006 3:37 PM
http://www.snappingturtle.net/jmc/tmblog/

Proportionality is a word that is victim to a long orwellian campaign to redefine it in a manner incompatible with Church teaching. The relevant battlefield is the dictionary, not the actual battlefield where troops die.

The JWD concept of proportionality is that you minimize force to the level where you achieve your just objectives but not one bit more. That means that if the only way you can take a rocket launcher out that is firing on your city is to drop a bomb on a building that contains civilians, you drop the smallest bomb possible that will take the launcher out. You don't use a city buster nuclear bomb for the job when you have an arsenal full of smaller ordnance that can do it.

This form of proportionality is christian, just, and eminently practical. It is also something that Israel has been following and getting cudgeled for it. The inevitable response is that if they're going to get the short end of the stick from world opinion anyway, they might as well go truly disproportionate and minimize the time of the war to minimize the damage and the risk of war loss due to political pressure from the international community.

It is this latter danger that everybody seems blind to and that would be best guarded against by a campaign to recover the proper use of the word proportionality. All military men in 1st world countries are taught this but with newsrooms being dominated by non-veterans these days, it is not getting into the papers and on the news shows.>

Joshua
July 28, 2006 5:33 PM

Thanks for the clarification TM Lutas.>

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Crunchy Con

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Crunchy Con

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.