Peridyd's Progress

So the Israeli civilian deaths at the hands of "terrorists" are more morally problematic than the Lebanese civilian deaths because the Lebanese deaths are part of war's collateral damage? Israel is acting in "self-defense," and so their actions are permissible?

I'm trying to understand the rationale, but I'm failing to. Setting aside the problematic of whether or not this is actually self-defense on Israel's part, one must begin with the premise that violence is an appropriate response to violence. Yet, I question the premise. Does violence, in fact, stop violence? Or does it beget more violence?

And then there's the whole question of scale. This recent onslaught of violence is ostensibly in retaliation against the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. Two. How many Lebanese civilians have died? Rather than self-defense, this smacks more of a tactic one might use to control a weak, though implacable, foe: intimidation. Again I ask, when has violence ever, in fact, stopped violence? What violent organization willing to attack an enemy with overwhelmingly superior firepower has ever backed down when that enemy has responded with brute force? This is not a nation that Israel is fighting. It's Hezbollah. There's no enemy's back to be broken here. Each terrorist death, each civilian death, will spawn more terrorists--an order of magnitude more.

That this rationale for Israeli violence comes from our nation's ambassador to the U.N. is so problematic. It's not surprising, of course, especially since our nation is largely silent vis-a-vis the Israeli acts of aggression against its neighbors. We should not be surprised when the region erupts in a transnational Intifada--though one might well argue that Al Qaeda is just such an eruption. It is most certainly the "logical" extension of the premises the combatants--including our government--share.

These opponents are locked in a death match. Bound by their hatred and desire for revenge, they have fought and died, fight and die, and will continue to fight and die, not because they are strong men, but because they not strong enough to respond with what will actually stem the bloodshed and heal the grief: compassion, empathy, and love.

Don't fall for the rhetoric of common sense that would have you believe that violence is the rational response to conflict. It is irrational, and it is so precisely because it doesn't work.

--Peridyd


read more | digg story