The Right State

This op-ed from the Jerusalem Post very articulately nails down why the UN and some in the west see the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in different way.  The difference can be likened to whether each side is playing by a particular set of previously agreed upon rules, or if the conflict is a matter of life or death with the rules thrown out the window.

Strategic interactions are of two main types. They either resemble a “game,” with each side making moves according to tacitly agreed evolving rules, or constitute a life-or-death “kill or be killed” conflict.

Thus, the cold war evolved rapidly into a “game,” with the exception of the Cuba missile crisis, when extreme American measures were necessary to reestablish relatively stable rules of interaction.

In contrast, the confrontation with Hitler was of the life-or-death type. The Western misreading of Hitler as a rule-following player - or at least as amenable to becoming such a player after “reasonable demands” were satisfied - resulted in very high costs. (snip)

Contemporary Western values, culture, economies, and politics are dense with factors that distort reality, making this critical task more difficult. Among these are the ill-founded beliefs that human beings are sure to prefer liberal democracy given a real choice, and that material interests necessarily reduce fanaticism.

Other Western handicaps are the lack of readiness to kill and be killed, even when doing so will likely to save many lives in the future; an unwarranted trust in partly outdated rules of international law; striving for so wide a consensus as to make effective action impossible; and worrying about energy sources and markets.

Some learning from mistakes does take place, especially in the US and England, though it happens the hard way - being hit by terrorism and facing obviously “evil” states. Still, the dominant trend, especially in Europe, is to cling to optimistic images of reality approximating the game model, despite stubborn facts to the contrary.

So when Hezbollah attacked, the Israeli response was considered an over-reaction and not proportionate.  The same things were said when the US entered Afghanistan, after all, we only lost 3000 people.  The US and Great Britain are just about the only countries to know civilization is in a life or death struggle with radical Islam.

ISRAEL, however, cannot permit itself such a short-sighted path of action. Hizbullah and Hamas, as supported by Syria and Iran, are life-or-death enemies likely, with time, to become more dangerous rather than to lose their fanatical nature. Therefore, Israeli counteraction must achieve the destructive capacity necessary to drastically reduce the growing threat; and to motivate bystanders to act against the fanatics and deter their supporters.

In particular, in view of the declared nature of the present Iranian regime as a total enemy and its growing power, including emerging nuclear capabilities, Israel must build (to be more exact, rebuild) credible deterrence, based in part on “rationality irrationality.” This requires a partial image of willingness and capacity to react unpredictably and with extreme violence to life-and-death dangers, even at high costs to itself. (emphasis added by TRS)

Harsh measures against Hizbullah and Hamas are a way to build such an image, in addition to being justified in themselves - all the more so as Hizbullah’s initial attack was probably designed to test Israeli determination.

IN MORAL terms, Israel confronts the tragic choice of either engaging now in a large-scale action, despite significant human costs, or wait until a much more costly war becomes unavoidable.

You can bet if Israel does not confront Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, and Syria now, they will have to do so later at a much higher cost in terms of lives lost.  Israel understands the dangers of radical Islam, for the most part the US understands too.  Most of Europe does not understand.  Of course they come by this honestly.  Even with the dangers of WWII looming, the leaders sought to appease Hitler.  It was not until he had conquered a good portion of Europe that they finally understood the danger this madman represented.  Europe has a history of appeasement, and in WWII it almost cost them their freedom.  And now they do not understand the danger radical Islam represents to a free world.  In the end it may be the United States who pulls the world’s chestnuts out of the fire once again.

Tags: Democracy, Iran, President Bush, War //