In his
latest column, Charles Krauthammer argues (shock of all shocks) that Israel has every right to defend itself (well duh...), and that its actions have not been "disproportionate." at all. While the actions of Israel might seem to many to have gone too far, I find Charlie's logic and use of examples rather interesting either way.
To Krauthammer, Britain's destruction of Germany was well warranted, though "killing untold innocent German women and children in the process." His point is that:
"When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right -- legal and moral -- to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan."
I know a lot of people think using the atomic bomb in Japan was the right thing to do. To me that seems absurd, but whatever. I doubt Krauthammer has ever seen an excuse to try out new weapons or kill civilians, that he wasn't willing to use (as long as someone else does the dirty work. He's an academic...needs his fingers intact to type). Regardless, that's not why I write.
In perhaps the most blatant terror campaign from the air since the London blitz, Hezbollah is raining rockets on Israeli cities and villages. These rockets are packed with ball bearings that can penetrate automobiles and shred human flesh. They are meant to kill and maim. And they do.
I find it curious how arbitrary his defense of bombing can be. I wonder how he felt about the US use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq?...bombs that look like cool yellow toys to kids who are quickly blown up. Clearly, to him, morality is not defined by actions but by WHO is acting. To the Iraqi people, I bet "shock and awe" seemed a little like a terror campaign. Our news programs celebrated our awesome firepower like it was a glorious fireworks show...which it was, on TV. If Saddam were able to retaliate with his own fireworks show on one of our cities, would we have found it so beautiful? We might have even shown the result of such bombing and the pieces of the human beings it leaves behind.
And obviously, Charlie's quote would suggest that Saddam would have "every right, legal and moral" as he says, to defend his government against the aggressors from abroad. He had certainly never attacked us and we see now, he didn't even have a WMD program. Sure he'd have liked to have one, but he didn't. Krauthammer logic would certainly dictate that if Saddam HAD possessed WMD's, he had every right to use them on his invaders.
Had Israel wanted to destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, it would have turned out the lights in Beirut in the first hour of the war, destroying the billion-dollar power grid and setting back Lebanon 20 years. It did not do that.
It did however,
bomb a power station in Jiyeh which has unleashed the worst environmental disaster in the history of the Mediterannean.
it has repeatedly dropped leaflets, issued warnings, sent messages by radio and even phone text to Lebanese villagers to evacuate so that they would not be harmed.
Well Charlie, tell that to the fleeing refugees who were taken out at the border. It's pretty convenient to blame the Lebanese government for not having gotten rid of Hezbollah: it helps rationalize anything you choose to do with your superior weaponry.
Had Israel wanted to destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, it would have turned out the lights in Beirut in the first hour of the war.
They might not have totally destroyed the nation's infrastructure, but they are making the whole population of South Lebanon suffer. There is a humanitarian crisis developing as supply routes that are "dual use" are not merely keeping weapons out, but also essential supplies.
Believe me, I would love nothing more than to see Hezbollah removed from the planet. They're pretty much the dictionary definition of a terrorist group. But when you have to kill thousands of people and displace hundreds of thousands more to get at Hezbollah and its smattering of weaponry, at what point is that no longer the "legal and moral" thing to do? I suppose the only war crimes that can be committed must be committed by whichever side attacked first. If so, why not just nuke 'em and be done with it? Oh Charlie, I'm not really suggesting that, but I bet you'd be able to justify it pretty easily, as long as it's your team that does the nuking.