Newsletter No. 332
Editorial-Opinion
July 19, 2006

 

THE MAGNIFICENT CLARITY OF KILLING
By Michael Penn

Israel’s over-the-top reaction to limited attacks on the Israeli military by elements of Hamas and Lebanese Hizballah has won its share of admirers. Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News blares out the headline: “Israeli Warplanes Launches [sic] More Strikes on Hezbollah Terror Stronghold.” The Conservative Voice announces, “Iranian, Islamofascist Backed Hezbollah Attack on Israel Really about the US.” Meanwhile, Israel’s Arutz Sheva exults, “Syria’s Not-So-Hidden Hand in Lebanon Struck by IDF.”

The Rabid Right can’t quite figure out who the enemy really is, but that the jingoist juices are flowing wildly is not a point under dispute here.

If it were only the usual suspects in the media that were saying these kinds of things, then perhaps they could be dismissed more easily, but among the most emphatic cheerleaders for the destruction of Lebanon’s entire national infrastructure (and not just “terrorist” bases) has been none other than President George W. Bush.

Bush has been kind enough to state his view of the “root cause” of the Arab-Israeli conflict. According to his considered opinion, the cause “is terrorism and terrorist attacks on a democratic country.” Apparently, in The World According to Dubya, the military occupation and economic strangulation of Palestinian society have nothing to do with the problems over there. Rather, Israel’s challenge is the same as the American challenge -- they are locked in a cosmic battle between the good democracies and the wicked terrorists, and the Axis of Evil that still stands behind those terrorists.

And the fact that these “terrorist” attacks were aimed at military targets? Ignored! And the fact that Israel still occupies the West Bank? Irrelevant! And the fact that the Bush Administration helped push Syria out of Lebanon some time ago? Inconvenient! The hyperbole is simply amazing: According to Ari Shavit of the Haaretz Newspaper: “Israel is currently waging the most just war in history.”

But fear not! The Decider knows the cure to this global disease: “…part of those attacks are inspired by nation states, like Syria and Iran. And in order to be able to deal with this crisis, the world must deal with Hizballah, with Syria, and to continue to work to isolate Iran.” Taken literally, Bush’s comments seem to suggest an intention to rapidly destroy Syria in the same way as Israel is currently trying to destroy Hizballah.

But most disturbing of all was the following philosophical observation of the American president: “Sometimes it requires tragic situations to help bring clarity in the international community.”

The full monstrousness of this comment needs to be drawn out, because it may reveal far more about the way that George Bush really thinks than a thousand of his other public statements.

According to Bush, “clarity in the international community” is a positive goal, worth tremendous pain and sacrifice. But what does he mean by the term “clarity”? What is he driving at? Those familiar with neo-conservative ideology will have no problem interpreting Bush’s idea here. For the neo-conservatives, “clarity” is one of the most important objectives of strong leadership.

In his excellent summary of neo-conservative Timothy Lynch’s February lecture at Chatham House, J. Sean Curtin noted that Dr. Lynch counted “clarity” as being the first of the three great advantages that neo-conservative ideology has to offer:

“Clarity: the neo-cons offer a forward-looking strategy for freedom and fight for good in a world which they clearly divided into good and evil. They do not indulge in the ‘fetish of complexity’ that so often leads to inaction and makes ‘experts incapable of coming to a conclusion.’ They offer ‘solutions not debate,’ an approach which can be described as ‘ignorance is strength’.”

Ignorance is strength. This Orwellian notion may appeal to the American president especially because it allows him to imagine himself as a “strong leader” without ever being set upon by the ravages of reading a book. Yes, neo-conservativism offers simplicity. Yes, it offers clear and immediate answers. But to quote cultural critic Roger Kimball in a different context: “What one gains is an explanation; what one loses is the truth.”

President Bush probably won’t lose any sleep over details like that. After all, he doesn’t want to “micromanage” affairs. But there are lots and lots of other people in this world who stand to lose their lives unless something is done to demonstrate that Bush does NOT speak for “the international community.” After all, with 9.11 and Afghanistan and Iraq and Palestine and now Lebanon, just how many “tragic situations” will it take to feed this great need for “clarity”? There are still a few of us out here -- even a few Americans -- who don’t care to live within this cartoon-character vision of reality. With all due respect to Timothy Lynch and the nominal leader of my nation, the real world is indeed a place of complexity, and most of the time there’s not a clear-cut decision between good and evil. Moral gray areas abound.

In any case, I profoundly disagree with Bush’s belief that the “root cause” of the Arab-Israeli conflict is “terrorism.” Once upon a time, after all, the main terrorists in that conflict were on the side of the Yishuv, and the attacks were aimed at British soldiers and officers of the UN, like Count Folke Bernadotte (i.e. Irgun and the Stern Gang). Terrorism has never been a “root cause” of conflict in that region, but rather a symptom of the deeper political problems.

The “root cause” of the fighting -- at this point in time -- is the double-standard of US policy in the region. To put it even more simply, the root cause is injustice. Muslims take the notion of justice very, very seriously, as it is a central value of the Islamic religion. The Old Americans used to feel the same way. As James Madison once put it in Federalist Paper No. 51: “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”

Madison was right. And today’s Washington had better understand that Madison’s words do not simply apply to those who hold American passports. The wisdom of Madison and his colleagues puts the current generation of American leaders to shame -- in this, and in very many other ways.

For Tokyo, the situation is more complex. As ever, the US-Japan Security Alliance shapes the framework of Koizumi Administration policy. Nevertheless, Japan does have an interest in peace in the region, and has no need to adopt a partisan stand that has nothing to offer but unnecessary conflict and outrage.

So far, the tilt toward the Israeli-Bush perspective has been perceptible. As Japan’s UN Representative Shinichi Kitaoka put it: “The Middle East has seen continuing deterioration over the past several months. The attacks by Hizballah across the Blue Line, the abduction of two Israeli soldiers and the ensuing developments have further destabilized the already fragile situation in the region, which is extremely worrying. Japan strongly condemns the attacks by Hizballah, which are a blatant breach of relevant Security Council resolutions, as well as the abduction of the Israeli soldiers. We call for the immediate and unconditional release of the soldiers.”

No one doubts that Hizballah’s raid on northern Israel is what preceded the massive attacks throughout Lebanon, but the Israeli counterattack has been so ferocious that it should be equally clear that more is going on here than simply a response to the recent raid carried out by Hizballah. The Olmert Administration is using this affair to carry out a much wider military and political program that really has very little relationship to the actual degree of threat that Hizballah poses to Israel. Tokyo should start to show a little more savvy appreciation of this fact, and not throw ALL of the blame on Hizballah for the current morass. This is an act of partisanship, not statesmanship. Below the surface, there is some blame attaching to all sides in this conflict, as Tokyo should be fully aware by now.

At any rate, returning to our earlier discussion, the neo-conservative idea of “clarity” should have little appeal among the Japanese. Much of Japanese culture is connected to the idea of using ambiguity and subtlety to avoid direct, face-to-face conflict. This attachment to indistinctness and a lack of definition is at the very heart of the Japanese values of peace and cooperation. Japanese want to be unclear, but peaceful. American neo-conservatives (like President Bush) want clarity and eternal war.

It would be odd for Tokyo to participate in such a project, would it not? Massive killings may make things clearer, but they won’t make things better.

 

COMMENTARY

1) From Ben-Ami Shillony of Hebrew University on July 20, 2006:

I was very upset by your article. Following are my comments:

For about two months, the "Shingetsu Newsletter" has been providing sound information, balanced analysis and serious discussion of Middle East affairs. Then, in the last issue (No. 332, Arab-Israeli Peace), like in a knee-jerk reaction, it jumped back to its old, one-sided, highly biased, greatly emotional and hardly convincing vituperations. Once again the readers are presented with a Newsletter that looks and sounds like a propaganda sheet of Hamas or Hizballah. Phrased in high-sounding vocabulary and using moral arguments it looks at first glance as a serious observation, but anyone who reads it thoroughly will immediately discover the logical contradictions and moral weaknesses.

Like in similar Newsletters in the old bad times, the author fully justifies one side, in this case the Hizballah, and fully denounces the other side, Israel, without a minimum of intellectual duty to give consideration to both sides. He dismisses apriori any justification of the Israeli side, and he denigrates any opinion which differs from his own extremist views as being a "Rabid Right." By that he convinces the reader to regard the writer's opinions as the "Rabid Left."

This one-sidedness is apparent in almost every sentence of the article. The self-destructive and criminal attacks, by organizations that the whole democratic world regards as terrorists, are described in beautiful terms ("limited attacks by elements of Hamas and Lebanese Hizballah"), while the Israeli response is described as inhuman and immoral.

It is apparent that the writer loathes Israel, the United States, and the U.S. government. He regards whatever they do as part of some sinister policy aimed at achieving an immoral goal. On the other hand, he lavishes praise on the most monstrous acts by Iran, Syria and their stooges because they are Muslim and therefore incapable of doing wrong. Muslims, in his words, "take the notion of justice very, very seriously." This means that the attacks of 9/11 or in Mumbai are expressions of justice, as are the calls of Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Shaikh Nasralla to wipe Israel off the map. The same logical strength is manifested in his accusation that the U.S. is to blame for what is happening in Lebanon because it "helped push Syria out of Lebanon."

The assertion which I liked most in this article was that the Olmert government is carrying out "a military and political program that really has very little connection to the actual degree of threat that Hizballah poses to Israel." The author does not reveal to us what this sinister program is.

Perhaps it is a top secret that he is not allowed to divulge, or perhaps he has not the slightest idea what it is. He finds it difficult to understand why moderate observers, like Ari Shavit in Haaretz, regard Israel's war as just and proportionate. The answer is simple. They justify the war not because they are rabid rightists or deranged Neo-Cons, but because Israel is doing today what it should have done a long time ago, and what the rest of the world had to do -- that is crash self-appointed terrorist organizations that operate outside state borders, professing to save the world through indiscriminate bloodshed.

The newsletter ends with a strange criticism of the Japanese government which showed maturity and tact by trying to understand both sides. Fortunately, the Japanese government is not going to heed the advice of the Shingetsu Newsletter.

Please bring these comments to the attention of the Newsletter readers.

2) From Keiko Sakai of Tokyo University of Foreign Studies on July 21, 2006:

I have an impression that the Japanese media does not recognize the seriousness of the Israeli attack on Lebanon. It seems that they perceive it as the "same old conflict between Arabs and Israelis," or "Israel's regular war against terrorism." But it is not, from a variety of perspectives. The current crisis is very serious in its political effect, aside from its seriousness from the humanitarian point of view.

In short, this attack destroys the whole effort to incorporate armed social forces into a legal political framework, which seems to be the only way to tame them and transform them into moderate political parties.

You have to realize that all of the militias in the Middle East (mainly based on Islamism) emerged in politically-abandoned areas in order to compensate for the inability of the states to protect the people and to offer social services to them; Hizbullah started its activities from the ruins of the Israeli invasion in 1982 and became popular among poor Shiites in the south as the only organization which could supply a lifeline to them. Hamas became active in supporting Palestinian communities in the occupied territories where other political authorities were helpless. Islamist political parties in Iraq gained their power through mobilizing the Islamic moral system to save the society from total anarchy after the US attack on Iraq.

What we have witnessed recently in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq was a political effort to bring these social forces with militias into the political field, and let them join elections and the multi-party system. Hizbullah has joined elections since 1992, the al-Sadr movement in Iraq since January 2005, and Hamas since late 2005. Once they join the "democratic" political system, we expected that they might shift their activities toward the legal political field, and restrict themselves in being involved in illegal military acts. This attempt has not been entirely successful so far, because most of these groups have kept their illegal military forces, but there have also been no better options.

We also know, from our experience, that harsh suppression by government or international bodies against such social forces will make them more radical and lead them to a non-negotiable stance. Jihadists in Egypt, and many of the active members of al-Qaida are good examples; they became more militant after they were expelled from their homelands. Their legalization and introduction to democratic systems is the only solution to keep them from a decisive turn toward radicalism and violence.

Israeli attacks on Hizbullah may put an end to this experiment. What kind of lessons do other militias receive from Hizbullah's fate? To be sure, the al-Sadr movement, which so far has been cooperative with other political parties and has behaved as a political party in the Iraqi multi-party system to some extent, will feel less secure in its "legal" status. No Islamist party, from now on, will say "well, it is safe to join the democratic system in order to avoid military action."

Secondly, it is of no benefit, even to the Israelis, to have another "failed state" in their neighborhood. A failed state in Lebanon will breed other radical and violent social groups and militias to defend their communities. The only solution for better security for the people of the region (including Israelis) is to have strong, stable states which can provide social services to its nationals.

What Israel is doing is the very opposite. If Lebanon becomes a "failed state" once again, there are numbers of militants who will want to establish their bases there. You must remember how "terrorists" entered Iraq and made it a center for violent activities, after the strong centralized state was removed. Why wouldn't Lebanon be next?

Thirdly, you should not neglect a consideration of the social network among the Shiites, and their sense of solidarity. It doesn't necessarily mean that Iran as a state will support Hizbullah. But even if the Iranian government is clever enough not to challenge Israel or the US at the present juncture, social networks among the Shiites may be mobilized. Moreover, you can find a lot of Shiite militants that are active in Iraq, and they are out of state control even under multi-national forces. Al-Sadr and the Iraqi Hizbullah openly announced their solidarity with the Lebanese Hizbullah. What will happen if these Iraqi militias join Hizbullah? Even al-Sistani, a mostly non-political religious authority, has already issued a fatwa calling for solidarity with the Lebanese people.

The gap between the strong sense of solidarity among the Shiites and the cool attitude among the Arab regimes may cause further sectarian conflicts between Sunnis and Shiites. Shiites may criticize Sunnis by saying that Sunnis are cowards, and Sunnis may say Shiites were stupid to provoke Israel. This affects Sunni-Shiite relations in Iraq, which are already bad enough. Or, if Hizbullah fighters decide to leave Lebanon, are there any other places for them to go than the southern part of Iraq? Will they meddle in the current civil war together with other Iraqi Islamist political parties?

In the year 2001, we had one failed state and we had Bin Laden. In 2003, we had two failed states and we had Bin Laden and Zarqawi. If we are now going to have third failed state, then what are we going to have next?

3) From Kozue Kimura of the International Center for Young Scientists on July 21, 2006:

I am very disturbed by the deteriorating situation in the Middle East. It is very shocking that the Christian part -- that has nothing to do with Hizballah -- was also bombed; East Beirut, Dora, Jounieh, the beach area of Tripoli... Lebanon is a segregated country. When I was staying in Lebanon five years ago, I felt strongly that in that country there was a strong hatred among the different religious groups (Muslim, Christian, Druze, etc.) and the different nationalities (Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians). The country was diverse, but quite segregated by different religions. Therefore, Israel's attack on Christian areas of the country came as a shock to me. I was staying both in East Beirut and in Jounieh, and I hardly saw any women with scarves! But those areas were attacked and have caused Christian casualities! I cannot accept Israel's pretext for the attack on Lebanon.

I personally think that Israel has gone too far in this war. Israel does not look good at all in the media. Even though the leaders of the world's largest economies might denounce Hizballah's terrorism on the northern part of Israel, accusing it of the beginning this new war, the images of crying Lebanese civilians and demolished buildings in Lebanon is coming on TV and the newspapers every day. I think that Israel is not winning this war with the Lebanese terrorist organization in the south. On the contrary, it is making more enemies in Lebanon, which used to be Israel's close allies, and among Western Christians that have been more or less supportive of Israel. Israel won't be any safer if it continues to use a hammer to kill a small ant.

I might sound very sympathetic with the Arab side, but I don't negate Israel's right to existence. Israel is an undeniable reality. There IS a Jewish state there. And I believe that Israel can use force to defend itself as a regular country. But in this war, I am disappointed at Israel's way of "wiping out the Lebanese terrorists." Blowing up Lebanon's infrastructure, demolishing Christian areas whose people don't agree with the Muslim way: Does that help Israel?