« Update on the Schmiedickes | Main | A lot going on.. »
July 14, 2006
On the Middle East
Cardinal Secretary of State Angelo Sodano today made the following declaration on Vatican Radio:
"The news we are receiving from the Middle East is certainly worrying.
"The Holy Father Benedict XVI and all his collaborators are following with great attention the latest dramatic episodes, which risk degenerating into a conflict with international repercussions.
"As in the past, the Holy See also condemns both the terrorist attacks on the one side and the military reprisals on the other. Indeed, a State's right to self-defense does not exempt it from respecting the norms of international law, especially as regards the protection of civilian populations.
"In particular, the Holy See deplores the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation, and gives assurances of its closeness to those people who have suffered so much in the defense of their own independence.
"Once again, it appears obvious that the only path worthy of our civilization is that of sincere dialogue between the contending parties.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
This is disingenuousness at its best. "Lebanon" is a fiction, not a sovereign state. It is a playpen for Hezbollah. Israel is not "attacking" a sovereign state, it is defending itself from terrorists, who hide behind the cover of "Lebanon." Sodano has played this game for years and Truth is always the victim. I hope Benedict has not written the script for this.
Posted by: Janice at Jul 14, 2006 9:18:54 AM
I'm with Janice on this. I sometimes wonder if Sodano spins it this way for the sake of the dhimmis or because he is one.
Posted by: Mike Walsh, MM at Jul 14, 2006 9:36:58 AM
I presume I'm not the only one surprised by this statement of Cardinal Sodano.
How can the Holy See condemn the "the military reprisals" of Israel.
"Indeed, a State's right to self-defense does not exempt it from respecting the norms of international law, especially as regards the protection of civilian populations". I don't see how Israel has not respected these norms and they are targeting, not the civilian populations, but the infrastructure eg. airport.
"In particular, the Holy See deplores the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation, and gives assurances of its closeness to those people who have suffered so much in the defense of their own independence". But Lebanon is where the terrorists attacks are coming from and where the terrorists are. How can Israel not attack Lebanon then?
It seems to me that all Israel is doing is defending herself and her people.
What is Israel supposed to do? Do nothing and allow the people of Israel to be attacked without any response?
Posted by: EuropeanCatholic at Jul 14, 2006 9:38:36 AM
"sincere dialogue between the contending parties."
Hezbollah and Hamas: "We want all the Jews driven from Palestine!"
Israel: "We're not going anyplace!"
Oh yeah, dialogue, even sincere dialogue, is going to solve this problem.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Jul 14, 2006 9:41:54 AM
A free and sovereign nation, who happens to do absolutely nothing as a group of guerillas use its territory as a staging area to attack a neighboring nation...
Posted by: Tom Harmon at Jul 14, 2006 9:47:49 AM
The only problem I have with the sentiments expressed is that they show an unfortunate lack of understanding of what an asymmetric war really is. They're grounded, for the most part, in things such as the Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which were written when warfare was symmetric. It is a difficult question when civilians cease to be civilians when they willingly and knowingly house, shelter and support combatants. That is an issue I could only wish we had more theological study on that issue - I'm not sure the classic Just War doctrine anticipated it. Hmm. Sounds like a good blog post...
Posted by: Peter at Jul 14, 2006 9:56:21 AM
Hello Tom,
Worse yet, Hezbollah is actually part of the ruling government coalition in Beirut.
Posted by: Richard at Jul 14, 2006 9:57:03 AM
How long again 'til Sodano's gone?
An attack ON Lebanon...
Free and sovereign
Maybe Sodano can write for the Daily Show as his next gig. He's funnier than Stewart (but not as funny as Colbert).
Posted by: Boko at Jul 14, 2006 9:59:39 AM
I find the "civilian casualties" reporting so frustrating. Terrorists are civilians. They're not living in military barracks and wearing uniforms. None of these news articles ever mention the well-known terrorist tactic of living in civilian homes and surrounding themselves with women and children. Hamas uses children as human shields whenever they engage the Israeli army.
In Afghanistan, they live in the same homes with their wives and children. And when we bomb them, it's reported that only women and children were killed.
And people fall for this ALL the time.
Posted by: TheLeague at Jul 14, 2006 10:00:14 AM
If a terrorist group used Niagara Falls, Canada, as a staging area to launch dozens of missiles to Buffalo and Rochester (and had done such things for years without the Canadian government lifting a finger to stop them), how much of the "civilian infrastructure" of Ottawa and perhaps Toronto would be left standing?
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jul 14, 2006 10:04:03 AM
Oh, yes, those euro-weenies in clericals did it again. Why bother by Lebanese civilians killed? All of them must be fanatical Hezbollah supporters, therefore they were asking for the bombing. Including the Maronites, of course.
People, think again. Hezbollah is despicable. But if Israel adopts the "ends justify the means" policy, it loses the moral high ground too. And that is what the Holy See is saying, IMHO. I pray for all the Israelis and the Lebanese (specially, the Maronites). May all be spared of this insanity.
Posted by: Ignacio at Jul 14, 2006 10:05:20 AM
FYI, the mock quotes around "civilian infrastructure" reflect the criticism Israel is receiving for going after Lebanon's int'l airport and other targets to disrupt Hezbollah's ability to wage war. Israel is emphatically not targeting civilians.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jul 14, 2006 10:08:24 AM
My, here's a series of comments that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus Christ!
An acknowledgement of responsibility on both sides, a call for restraint and a response both proportional and in compliance with international law and out come the brownshirts! When should Cardinal Sodano expect to be knocked down and kicked to a bloody pulp in some gutter by you folks, Don? You can make book on the fact that he's expressing the Pope's point of view, Janice.
John Lowell
Posted by: John Lowell at Jul 14, 2006 10:15:22 AM
The burden is on Hezbollah, not Israel. Israel has been putting up with Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al., since its birth. How long are they supposed to take it, Ignacio? And don't tell me that their "civilian" fellow travellers don't support their aims. The Holy See is using the argument of moral equivalence, which it is not entitled to make here.
I also wonder if Pope Benedict supports Sodano's statement (which it appears he does since Sodano is explicitly speaking for the Holy See)? If he does, there seems to be a cognitive dissonance in the Vatican itself. On the one hand, Benedict has spoken out quite strongly against terrorism, on the other hand, his secretary of state rationalizes that very terrorism when it is visited upon Israel. Hmmm....
Posted by: Janice at Jul 14, 2006 10:18:18 AM
"As in the past, the Holy See also condemns both the terrorist attacks on the one side and the military reprisals on the other."
John,
This is more than "a call for restraint and a response both proportional and in compliance with international law." It is (i) explicitly equating the terrorist attacks with the reprisals and (ii) implictly making the factual determination that the reprisals are not proportional and in compliance with international law. This type of shallow moral equivilency can be validly criticized by people other than "brownshirts."
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jul 14, 2006 10:29:06 AM
Maybe the Pope and the Vatican are concerned that the government of Lebanon might fall and open the door wider for Syria and Iran. Syria just got out of there. Okay maybe this will change some minds. GEORGE BUSH is concerned about the government of Lebanon falling. Does that make any difference with the Catholic/Left Behind folks?
I heard Bill Bennent this morning agree with an emailer asking basically "Why should Israel be concerned about responding in proportion to the attacks, who cares?" he said. I'm no expert on Catholic Just War Doctrine but I kind of took that "Catholic" Bill Bennett could care less about the church's teachings on Just War. Again I'm not expert, just my 2 cents.
I will add I have voted conservative Republican all my life. I don't claim the label of neo, paleo, or cruncy anything however, and am increasingly sick of the current political climate in this country.
Posted by: Tim F. at Jul 14, 2006 10:33:28 AM
You can make book on the fact that he's expressing the Pope's point of view, Janice.
So, John, you know for a fact that Sodano's expressing the Pope's point of view? In spite of the fact that Sodano's spent a lot of time doing things behind the Pope's back practically from the minute he was elected? You're very well informed. When did your job at the Vatican begin?
Posted by: Janice at Jul 14, 2006 10:35:44 AM
Ignacio,
You seem to be asserting either that Israel is deliberately targeting innocent civilians or that no military response involving collateral casualties of innocents can be undertaken without losing the moral high ground. I don't think there is any evidence supporting the first assertion and the second assertion is not a function of Catholic teaching. While the moral high ground is necessary (meaning one may not use intrinsically evil means) it is not sufficient to defeat the terrorists (meaning the mere avoidance of such means will in itself not afford Israel any protection whatsoever).
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jul 14, 2006 10:38:15 AM
Maybe we could arranged some talks between the parties. Say at Yalta with Hezbollah and at Munich with Hamas.
Just because it didn't work with the communists and the Natzis is no reason to be discouraged. In the minds of some at least.
Posted by: tcreek at Jul 14, 2006 10:40:37 AM
Janice says: "The burden is on Hezbollah, not Israel. Israel has been putting up with Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al., since its birth. How long are they supposed to take it, Ignacio? And don't tell me that their "civilian" fellow travellers don't support their aims. The Holy See is using the argument of moral equivalence, which it is not entitled to make here".
First, the burden of what? To each on its due. Hezbollah must certainly stop its terrorist actions and Israel has every right to protect itself. But Israel cannot retaliate disproportionately, targeting Lebanese infrastructure as if Lebanon and Hezbollah were not different entities. Two wrongs don't make one right.
Second, to lump all Lebanes as "civilian supporters" of Hezbollah is absurd. Lebanon is a profoundly divided country -Muslim vs Christian, Sunnis v. Chiites, Druzes v. the rest- which is currently trying to overcome by democratic means the effects of the Hariri assassination and Syria's occupation. Israel, by targeting the country as a whole is re-igniting´political and religious strife there. Not a wise decision in the long term. Lebanon may end up, yet again, in a civil war. This, in turn, will play against Israel.
Third, No "moral equivalence" here. It's just more simple, really: the ends do not justify the means.
Regards
Posted by: Ignacio at Jul 14, 2006 10:41:55 AM
The Israeli response IS out of proportion to the offense.
Let's step back and see how this started: The kidnapping of one (1) Israeli soldier.
For this, Israel seems perfectly willing to send the entire Mideast up in flames and kill Lord knows how many civilians (not to mention losing who knows how many more soldiers). Hezbollah are "lucky" terrorists, because they can always count on Israel over-reacting to anything they do, which of course further inflames the Arabs and is great for recruiting.
And the US, by vetoing a condemnation of this insanity, seems to be giving the green light to Israel to do more of the same. I hope everyone's real eager for their sons and daughters to help Israel fight its war to end all wars against Islam.
And people ask "why do they hate us"?
Posted by: WRY at Jul 14, 2006 10:46:50 AM
John,
Lebanon was given plenty of warnings these last several months to take care of the Hebzollah brigades meancing Isreali borders. Rocket attacks and platoon sized incursions into Isreali territory have gone on for months. Lebanon, a soverign state, has endorsed these actions by thier silence.
By attacking IDF soldiers within Isreali territory, and taking the hostage, Lebanon has bascially gone to war with Isreal. Hostage taking is univsersally regarded as an act of war. If anything, Isreal has shown great restraint. Isreal has every right, morally, and legally to invade Lebanon and lay waste to the country. The knee jerk anti-semitism of Europe is disgusting.
Posted by: JP at Jul 14, 2006 10:47:45 AM
JP what parish do you attend?
Another question, what do you mean by lay waste to the country? Like Rome did to Carthage?
What's with the anti-semitism charge. Did John even mention Jews or Israel for that matter?
Posted by: Tim F. at Jul 14, 2006 10:59:59 AM
Mike,
"It is (i) explicitly equating the terrorist attacks with the reprisals and (ii) implictly making the factual determination that the reprisals are not proportional and in compliance with international law. This type of shallow moral equivilency can be validly criticized by people other than 'brownshirts'."
Love that violence!
Memory in the Vatican is perhaps sufficiently accute to remember a time when the "terrorism" in this little contretemps was coming largely from the Israeli side, Mike. There are British families that are today short a relative or two that in 1948 were comfortably ensconsed at the King David Hotel. Funny how today's terrorism was once once a blow for freedom. If the Vatican is in fact detecting the moral equivalence you so deplore, perhaps its because the long view justifies it. This exchange is hardly the consequence of recent developments. I'll see that you get the sheet music for Die Fahne Hoch.
John Lowell
Posted by: John Lowell at Jul 14, 2006 11:03:09 AM
But Israel cannot retaliate disproportionately, targeting Lebanese infrastructure as if Lebanon and Hezbollah were not different entities.
Lebanon has been complicit in Hezbollah's terrorism for decades, hosting its headquarters in Beirut and permitting it to use its southern territory as a base of operations.
And people ask "why do they hate us"?
It's largely due to the invertebrate fecklessness that runs through this kind of thinking.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jul 14, 2006 11:03:50 AM
We obviously have a very spirited dialogue going on :) But if I may add a few reflections to assist in the 'dialogue' (being new to this whole blog thingy lol)
When we hear someone speak from the Vatican, as we heard Cardinal Sodano, it is important to see the statement in context in order to interpret it properly.
Given his present status (even if now only temporary since he is going into retirement) of Vatican Secretary of State he is speaking at the level of EVERY Secretary State in a similar situation-for example Colin Powell or Condaleeza (sp?) Rice. This statement comes from within the Papal Diplomatic community (by the way the oldest diplomatic corps in the world) and is the 'official' statement of the Pope as head of the Vatican City State AND Catholic Church. It is NOT however a teaching on matters of Faith and Morals. It belongs within the discernment process of reasonable human beings coming to this conclusion based on upon prudential reading of both the events and the sources (in this case) of Catholic social teaching and tradition (for example the Principles of Just War).
We also need to realize that the Church approaches all such events as this Mid East Crisis within the perspective of respect for each and every human life, each person, the norms of social justice AND (in situations of conflict and war) first and foremost the desire for, proclamation of the possibility of, and every effort expended for PEACE.
It is a carefully worded statement, I must say and we need to read inbetween the lines.
What does it really say?
1. Israel has the right to exist AND to protect itself
2. All acts of terrorism (aka Hezbollah Hamas, Al quaida etc) are heinous crimes and gravely immoral (read evil) acts (implicitly included would be nation states supporting etc such acts)
Now comes what some would see as the rub----
3) Lebanon is also a victim here. [Its existence is really due to the large mixed Christian population that makes it distinct and independent from Syria-of course tell that to the Syrians. Even genetically the Lebanese are descended from the Phoenecians not Syrians. For all practical purposes Lebanon is an occupied country even without Syria's troops and has become the nesting place of all sorts of terrorist organizations funded and backed by Syria and Iran---the Vatican knows this.
Finally (lol)
4. Even defending itself Israel must use the principle of 'proportion' in Lebanon and Gaza
This is simply the Just War Teachings of the Church
Posted by: Father Elijah at Jul 14, 2006 11:09:49 AM
I seriously doubt many people realized that once the Hebzollah unit attacked the IDF patrol inside Isreal, an act of war was commited. People can argue about proxies, sovreignty, etc... but with Hamas attacks from the South, and Hebzollah attacks from the North, Isreal has no choice but to defend themselves.
Isreal has the full backing of International Law on thier side -despite what the UN or the EU says. 80% of thier population lives within artillery range of the "terrorists". Thus far, Isreali air forces have hit either command and control safe houses (which had civilians shielding them -a breach of Geneva and International Laws) or military infrastrcuture.
Whether the IDF will retake Gaza or reoccupy southern Lebanon is problematic. Much will depend on what Hezbollah and Hamas do. So far, Hezbollah has targeted frontier towns and villages (ie civilians) - if they target the large petro chemical plants near Haifia all bets are off.
We should pray for a just outcome. Peace will only come when groups like Hamas and Hebzollah are defeated. Isreal has ceeded much territory during the last 15 years - and peace is still a pipe dream.
Posted by: JP at Jul 14, 2006 11:10:14 AM
John,
Are you always such an ass? Or do you just limit your insults to the safe confines of the blogosphere?
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jul 14, 2006 11:10:20 AM
Hi Janice,
"So, John, you know for a fact that Sodano's expressing the Pope's point of view?"
I said that you can make book that he is. I really don't know much about Sodano at all, truthfully, Janice. But I do know a more than a little about Benedict XVI.
John Lowell
Posted by: John Lowell at Jul 14, 2006 11:14:28 AM
Mike,
God bless you, Mike.
John Lowell
Posted by: John Lowell at Jul 14, 2006 11:17:09 AM
Tim,
Lay waste is a military term, meaning destroying every camp, sanctuary, every weapons cache, and every piece of military hardware Isreal can find. I really don't think most people realize how grave a situation Isreal finds itself now. They have no place to turn. No more land to cede. Over 12,000 Hezollah soldiers and hundreds of rockets flank thier northern and southern borders.
The moral equivalience here is astounding - it is reminiscent of the anger that was thrown at Czechoslovakia when they refused to cede Sudentland to Nazis Germany. A Hebzollah patrol crossed the border into Isreal, attacked an Isreali patrol, killed 7 IDF soldiers and took 2 hostage. That is an act of war.
Posted by: JP at Jul 14, 2006 11:20:59 AM
As I understand it, the rationale behind the attack on Hariri Intl. Airport, Lebanese air force bases, and the Beirut-to-Damascus road is to prevent Hizb'allah from spiriting the two soldiers they've abducted off to Iran.
I was in Beirut (and Damascus) over the Christmas break. There was a ton of building going on in the city centre and along the Corniche, mostly of high-end hotels and apartment buildings catering to foreign visitors. Every bank you've ever heard of had a presence there. However things pan out, this is going to hit their recovery hard. The entire south side of the city, though, is Hizb'allah Central, with no evidence whatever of the writ of the central government running there. Half the banners I saw were in Farsi.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel at Jul 14, 2006 11:23:43 AM
JP,
Thanks for the answer regarding the term "lay waste". I didn't realize it was that specific of a term.
Forget about the parish quesion. I didn't type that out of Christian charity. I apologize.
But what about the anti-semitism charge you leveled?
Posted by: Tim F. at Jul 14, 2006 11:25:16 AM
I should add. This is kind of like reading LittleGreenFootballs only with more than one viewpoint being expressed.
Posted by: Tim F. at Jul 14, 2006 11:26:54 AM
A few observations:
First, the problem with the statement at issue is that it does more than admonish Israel to make sure that its responses are proportionate; it actually asserts that they are not. This is a prudential judgment that may or may not be correct, but to couch it in such confident language betrays an arrogance that is discomforting.
Second, it is hard to ignore the anti-Semitism that is common throughout much of Europe, and it is certainly rational to assume that it informs opinions of both the populace and their governments (and conceivably even the Holy See). Yet, is should be possible to discuss the morality of Israel's actions on the merits regardless.
Third, I think it is certainly fair to question whether Israel's actions are proportionate. Much depends on what one assumes they are in response to. If viewed simply as a response to the kidnapping of a single soldier the case for "disproportionate" seems strong. If viewed as a response to a broader array of terror the question becomes more difficult to assess, and I'm inclined to think reasonable people may disagree. The fact that innocents are inadvertently killed or injured as a result of the reprisals is a very relevant factor in making this assessment, but it is important to recognize that that fact alone is not dispositive as a matter of principle.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jul 14, 2006 11:28:12 AM
I explained my views here in some detail. But I'll add a few points to the discussion here.
1. The Israeli soldiers who were attacked and killed and the pair who were abducted were killed and abducted on Israeli soil south of the border. Spin it any way you want, but that is an act of war.
2. But Hezbollah did the attacking and the abducting and not Lebanon, so how can Israel justify all this blowing stuff up?
Lebanon has no countrol over its south, which is essentially a de facto Hezbollah state. Lebanon's roads, ports and airports are used by Hezbollah to bring in arms from Syria and Iran. Lebanon even legitimizes Hezbollah by allowing members to serve as government ministers. Lebanon is at the least giving tacit permission for Hezbollah to do whatever it wants and at worse is aiding and abetting.
3. But Hezbollah has major backers and is more powerful than the Lebanese government...
So you've just admitted that Lebanon is /not/ a sovereign state, rather it is a Hezbollah controlled state... Which means Israel is not wrong in attacking throughout the country...
You get the idea.
Posted by: Jacob at Jul 14, 2006 11:30:14 AM
John,
A simple "I'm sorry" would have sufficed, but God bless you too.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jul 14, 2006 11:33:27 AM
JP: Peace will only come when groups like Hamas and Hebzollah are defeated.
and command and control safe houses (which had civilians shielding them -a breach of Geneva and International Laws)
TheLeague: the well-known terrorist tactic of living in civilian homes and surrounding themselves with women and children. Hamas uses children as human shields whenever they engage the Israeli army.
Obviously the violation of just war principles, the Geneva Convention, etc., by one side does not justify the other side doing the same. So Israel may not inflict excessive collateral damage in its reprisals agaisnt attacks by Hamas.
But if Hamas uses women and children non-combatants as shields, perhaps that forces Israel into a position where it cannot avoid excessive collateral damage. In other words, perhaps Israel is forced to choose between conducting war unjustly and losing.
I have little doubt Israel would choose to fight unjustly. Terrorist groups, almost by definition, have chosen that way. I have little doubt other nations would choose the same. It's sad, but not surprising.
Posted by: Anne-Marie at Jul 14, 2006 11:42:21 AM
Anti-semitism is alive and well in Europe, especially amongst the elite. Since there are so few Jews living in Europe, most of thier venom is directed at Isreal.
I think most people here know the long history of the infatadia. In the 20 years since it began, Isreal gave in to almost all of the demands. "Peace for Territory", a free West Bank and Gaza, as well as the withdrawl from Lebanaon have all become reality. That is, except for peace. When Isreali soldiers get ambushed, killed, and kidnapped, what is the first thing the EU does? Calls for Isreal to use "compassion", "restraint", blah blah blah. Not one statement condemning Hezbollah, the goverments of Lebanon, Syria, or Iran.
If this isn't anti semitism, I don't know what is.
Posted by: JP at Jul 14, 2006 11:42:47 AM
John,
I know a lot about Sodano and a LOT about Benedict XVI. Father Elijah's points are well taken. But you are a know-nothing AND an ass. Stop trotting out the Nazi references. Sodano has been in bed with Palestinian terrorist movements (and with Pinochet) for decades. Israel was NEVER in the right (and what are the odds?). I very much doubt, even given Father Elijah's interpretation of the statement, that Sodano's intent was simply to reiterate Church teachings.
Posted by: Janice at Jul 14, 2006 11:45:51 AM
JP,
Are you a priest, JP? Oddly, a couple of weeks ago at another blog another JP, a priest as a matter of fact, belched the same, tired old antisemitism smear at me as you have. I'm currently in process of dialogue with his bishop about the matter. Priests really ought to know better than to smear folks on the web while relying on the anonymity their diocese enforces on them while posting. Now if you're not that priest we're simply not going to consider you sufficiently weighty to justify a reply.
GOd bless.
John Lowell
Posted by: John Lowell at Jul 14, 2006 11:47:25 AM
Unbelievable how some of you will quote, "The Vatican" to your heart's content for your own purposes, but when "The Vatican" issues a statement condemning Israel it's challenged to the hilt. BTW, whomever you want to think "The Vatican" is, they know infinitely more about the situation in the Middle East than any of you blind supporters of Israel. Yes, the Israeli POW's should be released ASAP. Does anyone care about the thousands of civilian Palestinins who've never been charged sitting in Israeli prisons?
Posted by: William at Jul 14, 2006 11:50:20 AM
"You seem to be asserting either that Israel is deliberately targeting innocent civilians or that no military response involving collateral casualties of innocents can be undertaken without losing the moral high ground. I don't think there is any evidence supporting the first assertion..."
Tell that to the civilians the Israelis bombed on the Palestinian Beach. Is not Hezbollah responding to that incident?
Also read Elias Chacour's (recently appointed Archbishop of Galilee by Benedict XVI) 'We Belong to the Land' on the plight of the Palestinian Christian under the hammer of both militant Islam and militant Israeli secularism.
Posted by: Casey Khan at Jul 14, 2006 11:51:16 AM
I don't think John Lowell is an ass, or a know-nothing. But he is a serial violator of Godwin's Law, which leads people not to take his arguments seriously. I've read few of his interventions on these boards--on a wide range of topics--that don't compare those with whom he differs to Nazis.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel at Jul 14, 2006 11:51:49 AM
Anne-Marie,
Isreal will fight this war as we fought the Second World War (remember the horrific fire bombings of Hamburg, Tokyo, and Dresden?), Grant and Sherman fought the Civil War (siege of Vicksburg, and the burning of Atlanta).
The post modern dream of war with smart bombs, no collateral damage - was that just a dream. In the end Isreal will defend its unarmed civilians. Even if that means bombing military targets surrounded by human shields. They have little choice.
Posted by: JP at Jul 14, 2006 11:52:15 AM
"When should Cardinal Sodano expect to be knocked down and kicked to a bloody pulp in some gutter by you folks, Don?"
Oh, never I suspect John. I think his chances are much higher of dying in a Jihadist bombing.
Bringing up the King David hotel bombing John? You can do better than that: an act committed by the Irgun which was condemned by David Ben-Gurion and the Israeli government. Israel's actions have not always been above reproach, the attack on the Liberty is a glaring example, but Israel is a functioning democracy which generally observes Western standards of human rights, while the enemies of Israel rejoice in the slaughter of every Israeli, man, woman and child.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Jul 14, 2006 11:53:14 AM
Janice,
Today would seem to be blessing day, Janice. Here's one for you too.
And no, despite your expression of interest we're not in a position to send you our last copy of Der Sturmer. :-)
John Lowell
Posted by: John Lowell at Jul 14, 2006 11:56:11 AM
A few facts that may clear up some of the confusion since I don't expect most people here track this news as much as I do:
1. Israel unilatterally pulled out of Gaza and parts of the West Bank. This was lauded by Europeans at the time as a "small" step toward "peace." Since then, those areas have fallen into chaos, teetering on civil war.
2. Hamas attacked an Israeli checkpoint two weeks ago, killed several soldiers and took two hostages. Then killed one.
3. Hizbullah infiltrated Israel from Lebanon earlier this week, attacked Israeli soldiers, killed 8 and took two hostages.
4. Hizbullah IS Iran. Hizbullah is an arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. They do the bidding of Iran. Hizbullah controls southern Lebanon including southern Beirut and the region around the airport.
5. The Israelis are bombing infrastructure used by Hizbullah to move arms and men across Lebanon.
6. Lebanon's Bekka Valley is a base of Hizbullah's training and logistical infrastructure.
7. Israelis are targeting "civilian" infrastructure used by Hizbullah for command and control, because Hizbullah uses private homes for command and control.
8. The rocket barrages going into Israel aren't like, say, fireworks. They're 20-30 lbs of ordinance pointed into the populated parts of Israeli towns and sent over the border by the hundreds. A recent attack included about 200 rockets.
Posted by: TheLeague at Jul 14, 2006 11:58:42 AM
Iran finds itself under extreme pressure since 9-11. Before 9-11 the US had almost no presence in the Middle East (a Turkish base, a few warships in the Gulf). Since 9-11, the US has established permanent bases in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Qatar, and Iraq. We have a sympathetic regime in Azerbaijan, and a nominally secular Shiite regime in Iraq. We've pushed Syrian troops out of Lebanon, and have pushed some Gulf countries to moderate their political processes, like Kuwait's move to give women the right to vote.
Iran has been the biggest loser in all this (not that I'm weeping for them), but you can see that the insane government in Tehran needs to exert some of its regional power in order to maintain its own legitimacy with its own country. What better way than to use your own proxy in Lebanon in order to incite the Jews to attack Arab countries?
Israel's push against Hizbullah in Lebanon is an attack on Iran. If it follows through on its rhetoric (and we can only hope so)and destroys Hizbullah's infrastructure in Lebanon, it will weaken Iran's hold on the region. And weaken Iran's nutty regime even further, perhaps break it.
Posted by: TheLeague at Jul 14, 2006 12:17:03 PM
Blind,
I appreciate your point; you are a charitable man.
But in my book anybody who effectively calls someone a Nazi without the least provocation is acting like an ass. The fact that the person apparently makes a habit out of calling people with whom he disagrees Nazis means he just plain is an ass. And the fact that he punctuates his name-calling with "God bless" means he is an ass worthy of contempt.
Of course that's just my opinion.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jul 14, 2006 12:17:23 PM
One fact that may clear up some of the confusion since I don't expect most people here have lived under Israeli occupation for two years as I have 1. For almost 40 years, Israel has occupied a people, many of whom are fellow Catholics, who don't want to live under Israeli rule.
Posted by: William at Jul 14, 2006 12:17:35 PM
What about Iran -- currently ruled by a President and Mullahs who KNOW that God ordained them to bring about The End of the World?
And have the Christian End Time Prophecy types come out of the woodwork yet? (They pop up going "SEE! I'M RIGHT! THIS IS IT!" every time there's a flareup in the Mideast. Thank you, John Nelson Darby...)
-----
The rocket barrages going into Israel are mostly "Katyushas", an artillery rocket originally designed and used by the Russian Army. Think of a five-inch artillery shell mounted on six-to-eight feet of solid rocket motor, with a range of about 10-12 miles. Not very accurate, but they were intended to be used in barrages of over 200 at a time for area saturation. (Russian Army runs 40 tubes to a launcher, six launchers (240 tubes) to a battery, three batteries (720 tubes) to a battalion. Russian Army doctrine was to fire all tubes at once for a "sledgehammer" effect on the target area, then scoot out before the enemy could return fire, reload in a safe area, and repeat.)
The ones that hit Haifa are bigger -- Iranian-built 13-inchers with a range of 20-30 miles. Think of a 12-14-inch battleship shell with about 10-20 feet of solid rocket motor behind it. (Probably only 12-16 tubes per launcher due to the extra size & weight.)
Posted by: Ken at Jul 14, 2006 12:19:41 PM
Cardinal Sodano is right both from a moral standpoint--the ends do not justify the means--and from a geopolitical standpoint. Each time Lebanon has been dragged into a larger Mideast War, the consequences have been disastrous for Lebanon and the Christian community there. And the Holy See is right to focus on what happens to the Lebanese Christians, the largest Catholic group in the Mideast.
The Vatican also knows, even if American neocons do not, that the War on Terror has so far been a disaster for Christians in the Mideast. Iraq has seen a steady outflow of Christians since the invasion, with many Iraqi Christians seeking refuge in Syria, a secular Arab country that, whatever its other flaws may be, is tolerant of Christianity.
Posted by: Tom Piatak at Jul 14, 2006 12:19:53 PM
In one post John Lowell begins by praising restraint and proportional responses and ends by calling people "brownshirts."
In another he says that he will provide Mike Petrick with a Nazi Storm Trooper marching song.
John Lowell has revealed more about himself than about any of the posters here or about the disputed issues.
Posted by: George Lee at Jul 14, 2006 12:24:27 PM
The remark by Casey Khan shows the incoherence of those who hate Israel. In their minds Hisballah which is putatively a Lebanese outfit is entitled to respond to what happened in Gaza - the beach incident with a Palestinian Shirley Temple acting for the camera - but the Israelis should not make the connection that Hamas and Hizballah intend to wage a low intensity war for a long time. A method of fighting which puts the Israelis at great disadvantage since they have a small population and in addition have a country run.
In any case given the firepower of the Israelis the Lebanese casualties - not all civilians have been very low. So far it is less than a hundred which is just a bad day in a Baghdad market.
Posted by: Ivan at Jul 14, 2006 12:35:21 PM
Sodano's statement is a paradigmatic example of why Benedict is wise to remove him.
1. It is simply untrue to say that "the latest dramatic episodes...risk degenerating into a conflict with international repercussions." There is ALREADY a serious conflict with international repercussions, not just a risk.
2. The subtext of Cardinal Sodano's statement condemning "military reprisals" to terrorist attacks and the need for a state to respect international law "especially as regards the protection of civilian populations" is wrong on several counts. Although Hezbollah has repeatedly participated in and supports terrorist attacks, the unjust incursion into Israel and the capturing of Israeli soldiers (the event that percipitated the "military reprisals) is NOT an example of a terrorist attack, but of an act of war against a sovereign state. While civilian deaths have occured in connection with Israel's response to Hezbollah aggression, NONE of these were the result of targeting civilians, and, as Cardinal Sodano well knows, in certain circumstances even the foreseen (possible) deaths of a small number of civilians might conceivably be justified by the principle of double effect as long as the intention was not to target civilians. Israel routinely deplores the "collateral damage" of civilian deaths. Hamas and Hezbollah routinely praise the direct targeting of civilians. It is shameful and partisan to imply that only Lebanese civilians have died.
3. Lebanon, contrary to Sodano, is NOT a free and sovereign state, but is IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO BECOME ONE. If it is unable to disarm a terrorist group (Hezbollah) from the South and unable to prevent the Hezbollah militias from attacking Israel (the head of state did denounce the Hezbollah incursion), then it is not yet either free or sovereign - thanks to the presence of Iran and Syria's client, Hezbollah.
4. To drag the Holy See into "deploring the attack on Lebanon" without so much as a mention of Hezbollah's attack on Israel and its client status with respect to Iran and Syria (who compromise the alleged free and sovereign status of Lebanon) is partisan in the extreme.
5. It is not wrong to raise questions of proportionality, an issue on which people of good will can come to different conclusions. But this very relevant principle is not even mentioned by Sodano.
6. The biggest mistake in all of this is to think that the Holy See is making a contribution to peace when its officials make partisan statements that barely manifest a beginner's understanding of Catholic social teaching.
7. We should not be surprised after the shameful (and anonymous) statement by an "unnamed" Vatican official denouncing the Muhammad cartoons.
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Jul 14, 2006 12:40:54 PM
Anne-Marie, JP,
You're both right that wars often lead to violations of jus in bello principles. But the point here is that it's sometimes difficult to say just what it means to target civilians, and the practice of hiding military personnel, equipment, etc. in civilian buildings makes it especially difficult. In other words, before we lament that a country may end up targeting civilians, we have to deal with a prior problem: if I deliberately station my mortar right next to my kids' sandbox, is it really true that the guy who takes a shot at my mortar is targeting the sandbox? If so, then we have a violation of jus in bello principles; but maybe it isn't so.
I'm not trying to insinuate that you guys are making a mistake, by the way; I honestly don't know what to say. But I think that the case I just mentioned (mortar next to sandbox) isn't the same sort of case as, say, the bombings of Cologne, Hamburg, Dresden. The latter, if I understand them correctly, really were attempts to destroy civilian populations, and clearly so (historians?). The mortar/sandbox case isn't so clear--or so it seems to me.
Posted by: MG at Jul 14, 2006 12:41:25 PM
So much venom here; so many condemnations. Personally, I feel mostly compassion for the Christians of the Near East, whether in Palestine or in Lebanon. The Israelis hate them because they are Arabs, and the Muslim Arabs hate them because they are Christians. They get no sympathy from the Left because they are Christians, and the Right is dominated by dispensationalists who think that Israel can do no wrong and that, not being Evangelical Protestants, they are not actually Christians. But I know some of these people. These are our brothers and sisters, holding fast to their faith while besieged from every side in ways that we safe and comfortable Americans cannot imagine. This attack is going to end up hurting them.
Maybe that's what the Vatican is thinking about.
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Jul 14, 2006 12:44:03 PM
Maybe the Vatican ought to be thinking about ALL of the people involved, instead of obviously favoring one group over another. Christians are not the only ones suffering.
Posted by: Janice at Jul 14, 2006 12:47:29 PM
The threat to Christians in Lebanon does not come from Israel which guarantees freedom of religion, but from Islamic groups in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, who are committed to the establishing of an Islamic state which by definition will reduce all Christians to second class citizenship (dhimmitude).
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Jul 14, 2006 12:48:08 PM
I find some of the comments here quite shocking.
Let's start with the basics: just war theory. Can anybody possibly argue that the Israeli response to the kidnapping of a couple of its soldiers justified much as massive retaliatory reponse? A response that involved bombing the airport, main highways, killing 67 civilians (and rising), and imposing a total economic blockade? Forget the other principles involved, and just focusing on proportionality. Not even Michael Novak could twist this one!! No, the only conclusion one can draw is that this is an immoral response. Many of you seem to be arguing, not from Catholic just war theory, but from a kind of Niehburian realism, or (worse) a kind of retalition that was explicitly denounced by Jesus himself.
Many people also seem blind to the realities of Lebanon. Are people aware that Lebanon was currently undergoing a tourist-driven economic boom, and that this is now at an end? I find it hard to believe that this did not feature in Israel's calculus. And did nobody else find it chilling when the Israeli commander threatened to turn the clock back 20 years on Lebanon? Reminder: the early 1980s was the worst and most vicious time during the long civil war.
Is Israel deliberately trying to destroy the Arab world's only functioning democracy? Is it trying to destroy the fragile Christian-Sunni-Druze coalition that came together after Hariri's murder? And just at a time when it seemed like the Syrian wave of assassinations had come to an end. Of all countries in the world, Lebanon needs a break. This is heart breaking for me: I've been to Lebanon numerous time, and have friends from both the Christian and Muslim communities. I can honestly say that it's one of the most beautiful countries in the world, and that the Lebanese are tired of being kicked around by Syria, Iran, and Israel. Yes, Hizbollah is a problem. But it (unfortunately) has huge support from within the Shia community, and it's not going to go away. Dealing with it, and getting it to disarm, is a delicate matter. But what Israel is currently doing will make this task far worse.
Finally, ask this question: imagine if a couple of pro-Hariri (or pro-Jumblatt) hotheads had kidnapped a couple of soliders in the Bekaa a few years back, and Bashar Assad reponded in the manner that Israel is responding today. Wouldn't people see it differently?
Pray for the people of Lebanon.
Posted by: Tony A at Jul 14, 2006 12:56:34 PM
One more thing: the Vatican better reflects the views of world Catholicism on this, than does the United States position, which is (almost alone in the world) far too close to one side of this conflict (Israel).
Posted by: Tony A at Jul 14, 2006 12:59:33 PM
Tony A and Henry Dietrich are exactly right. If there is one group that truly has no friends in the Mideast today, it is our Arab Christian brothers and sisters. They should at least be able to count on our moral support.
Posted by: Tom Piatak at Jul 14, 2006 1:02:23 PM
From CWNews:
"Patriarch Nassrallah Pierre Sfeir, the head of the Maronite Catholic Church, asked for prayers for the people of Lebanon during a July 13 press conference in Massachusetts.
"The Maronite patriarch, Lebanon's most prominent Church leader, spoke to reporters as he concluded a trip to the US, during which he sought to increase awareness of his country's problems. Thanking American leaders for their support, he said that 'the Lebanese are determined to live far from terrorism, tyranny, corruption, and despair.'
"Saying that he is 'very concerned and anxious' for Lebanon in the light of this week's new violence, Cardinal Sfeir condemned 'all aggression, wherever it comes from.'
"He continued: 'We condemn Israel's recent retaliations against Lebanon's people and infrastructure. We also hope that Hezbollah will finally lay down its arms and join the other citizens of Lebanon in reaching political solutions to all of the Lebanese problems.' "
Posted by: WRY at Jul 14, 2006 1:03:45 PM
Tom Haessler:
My friend, I rarely disagree with your astute analysis, but I fear Lebanese politics is far far more complicated than this. Hezbollah is not Al Qaeda. They are more concerned with internal political power play than fulfilling a grand ideological agenda. Remember they were the leading supporters of the Christian president Lahoud after support withered away from the other groups (Christian, Sunni, Druze). And they even formed a tactical alliance with Gen. Aoun when Aoun complained that he had been locked out of the Saad Hariri coalition. Then again, that's typical Lebanese politics!
Posted by: Tony A at Jul 14, 2006 1:06:58 PM
And remember Sfeir is a Cardinal Bishop...
Posted by: Tony A at Jul 14, 2006 1:08:57 PM
Hello, Tony A,
As I pointed out in point 5 of my 12:40 post above, proportionality IS a relevant principle for discussion here. I applaud your introduction of this theme and strongly deplore Cardinal Sodano's neglect of this. Even President Bush has introduced this relevant feature of a careful moral analysis. However, it troubles me that you seem to think that people of good will could not come to different conclusions when applying this principle. You refer to the Hizbollah problem as "delicate", but doesn't this imply that Lebanon is clearly NOT a free and sovereign state if Iran and Syria and the numerical strength of Hizbollah prevent the Lebanese government which deplored the incursion into Israel from taking action against Hizbollah? You obviously have more first hand experience with Lebanon than I do, so I'd like to ask you if Maronite Christians in Lebanon today aren't extremely angry at Hizbollah for starting this? ABC (which seems to me to be slightly tilted toward the Palestinians most of the time) last night showed a woman in Beirut strongly deploring Hizbollah's adventurism and a man in the South deploring the fact that it's always civilians who suffer when the militias do their thing. Isn't it true that ALL the principal players on the other side want to work for the destruction of Israel (Iran, its client Hizbollah, Hamas)?
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Jul 14, 2006 1:16:06 PM
Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon about ten years ago. Hizbullah filled in the power vaccum left when they left. Hizbullah gave the Muslims in the region a general amnesty.
They gave the Christians no such option, citing Islamic law. Most Christians fled to Israel.
Posted by: TheLeague at Jul 14, 2006 1:23:19 PM
I haven't been able to muster much sympathy for the Palestinians since they took to the streets in an outburst of joy on September 11, 2001. The Israelis handed back significant amounts of land last year to the Palestinians, who burned every synagogue which remained on land vacated by the Israelis. Israel would not have made military incursions into Lebanon and Palestine if the Arabs hadn't kidnapped IDF personnel. If the Israelisn need to kick the Palestinians in the teeth, so be it.
Posted by: Ed at Jul 14, 2006 1:30:19 PM
Cries of proportionality seem so quaint, and, quite frankly, a leftover of the 20th century realities. The principles I read about in anti-war commentaries all over the web appear to be the kind of actions you would take if you had two or three standing, national armies fighting the others. And the only folks I see throwing out Just War principles are leftists.
In the face of asymetrical warfare -- the new reality of war -- is anyone rethinking just war theory. Or are its principles simply going to fade into irrelevancy along with the leftists who appear to rely on it like a crutch.
Posted by: TheLeague at Jul 14, 2006 1:32:44 PM
What Ed and TheLeague say is, as Mark Shea puts it, "We are at war, dammit". To hell with Just War principles. The candidness of the assesssment is refreshing, but also quite telling...
Posted by: Ignacio at Jul 14, 2006 1:39:14 PM
EuropeanCatholic:"What is Israel supposed to do? Do nothing and allow the people of Israel to be attacked without any response?"
How about abiding by international law and negotiating the issues that have been on the table since 1948? Or accepting the proposal from 2002/2003 of ALL the countries in the region to relinguish illegal settlements beyond the 1967 line in exchange for normal relations?
Rich: England didn't invade Ireland or bomb Dublin despite years of IRA attacks in downtown London. Since you think we would destroy Canada if some group based there attacked us and since you see Sodano as a hezbollah supporter, maybe Israel should level the Vatican?
Posted by: marianne at Jul 14, 2006 1:44:00 PM
marianne,
If the IRA were launching rockets from Ireland into London in order to kill civilians and the Irish government did nothing to stop them, are you seriously contending that England would not have invaded Ireland in order to put an end to it?
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jul 14, 2006 1:49:04 PM
"I haven't been able to muster much sympathy for the Palestinians since they took to the streets in an outburst of joy on September 11, 2001." Well, I haven't been able to muster much sympathy for the Israelis since they would routinely round up Palestinians from the Catholic school where I was teaching in Jerusalem and beat them and keep them overnight. On June 19, (while I was living in Jerusalem) 1977, the London Sunday Times reported what I already knew when they printed a detailed report which concluded that "torture of Arab prisoners is so widespread and systematic that it cannot be dismissed as `rough cops' exceeding orders. It appears to be sanctioned as deliberate policy."
Posted by: William at Jul 14, 2006 1:50:13 PM
Remember they were the leading supporters of the Christian president Lahoud after support withered away from the other groups (Christian, Sunni, Druze).
But Lahoud, although a Christian, has always strongly supported the presence of Syrian military/intelligence in Lebanon. And Syria is one of the prime backers of Hezbollah. It would seem that the Hezbollah support of Lahoud is primarily motivated by simple self interest. I don't see it as being evidence of Hezbollah being "non-ideological" or tolerant of Christians.
Posted by: mark j at Jul 14, 2006 2:02:09 PM
Ignacio:
Here's a question: How do you define asymetrical warfare? I'm curious, I'd like to know.
Those who grasp at Just War theory in support of their anti-war/anti-American stance need to answer this, because we're not fighting the Germans anymore. The threat of global war with Communists no longer exists.
We're fighting terrorist groups, often proxies of weak states like Iran. This is the 21st century reality. Grasping at 20th centry leftist ideology (no matter what Catholic guise it takes) will only weaken a legitimate voice of restraint.
Leftism is politically impotent and culturally irrelevant. But if this is all you have to argue with then you're in big trouble.
Posted by: TheLeague at Jul 14, 2006 2:02:21 PM
Also, Tony, don't you think some of your comments verge on calumny? Hezbollah attacks an Israeli post (located on the Israeli side of the border) and abducts two soldiers, then launches over 200 rockets into Israel, and you want us to believe that the Israeli response is all about crippling the Lebanese tourist industry?
Posted by: mark j at Jul 14, 2006 2:09:39 PM
TheLeague,
Apparently, you don't understand where you are. Virtually all the people who're arguing within the context of just war principles here are what the media would call "conservatives", not leftists. Most oppose same sex marriage, believe that abortion and contraception are sins, supported Terri Schiavo, and regard papal authority as a privileged source of truth. If "leftists" ever begin to espouse these ideas, you'd find that their ranks would include many Catholics. Christians reasoning together on how to understand God's command not to kill in the context of war is nothing new and has nothing to do with leftist politics. It's a continuation of a conversation that started almost eighteen hundred years ago.
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Jul 14, 2006 2:15:13 PM
A suggested clarification in the interest of gentle and accurate discussion: When someone says that it's time to "rethink" just war theory, maybe the meaning isn't "let's get rid of it" but rather "let's think again about what it means so we can apply it well in our current situation."
One example: it's one thing to agree that warfare must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants; it's another to figure out how to do this when the enemy is trying hard to blur the line.
In order to be true to the Church's just war teaching, it's always going to be necessary to figure out how to apply it. Of course some people will use this as an excuse for evading the Church's teaching, but that doesn't mean that rethinking is bad, it just means that it's perilous--just like everything else on earth.
Posted by: MG at Jul 14, 2006 2:17:36 PM
Mike Petrik: You're just as dead if you're blown up by a bomb and the IRA placed hundreds of them throughout England, even in tourist areas like the Tower of London museum. They also assasinated Lord Montbatten and tried to assasinate Prime Minister Thatcher, blowing up a hotel where she was staying. And, no, England didn't attack bomb factories or enablers or sympathizers in Ireland - or in the USA from where groups were sending guns and money.
Posted by: marianne at Jul 14, 2006 2:17:40 PM
Who is this 'we'? Hezbollah and Hamas are not simple terrorist groups. You might as well call the Kurds a terrorist group if that is one's standard. This does not mean that they don't use weapons and bombs. They are not interlopers however.
This is where Sodano's statement makes sense. It actually respects groups and peoples. This is not a case of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." It is not a case of Hamas and Hezbollah fighting because they "hate democracy and hate capitalism." As others have pointed out, there are plenty of innocent victims of this confict to go around.
If anyone expected the Vatican to state that Hezbollah and Hamas were evil incarnate and unworthy of human dignity, they were obviously disappointed.
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Jul 14, 2006 2:21:57 PM
TheLeague: I don't know. You came up with the term. Define it as you will. I'm sure you'll find a way to make it play in favor of your preconceibed ideas. If you have managed to ignorantly disregard 2000 years of moral thought on the issue of war simply as "20th centry leftist ideology", you are surely up to the task.
The point remains: ends do not justify means
BTW:
1) I know very well what kind of murderous organization is Hezbollah. It blew up a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires 18 years ago, killing 85. I live one block and a half from the place whre the bombing occurred. Though I would have liked to see the perps properly punished, I would not have endorsed -even if ot had been possible- an Argentinean shelling southern Lebanon or the bombing of Iran. I cling to this curious notion that the ends do not justify the means.
2) It is just curious that, in addition to your ignorant remarks per se, you would like to paint your opponents as leftists or 20th century ideologues. Quite the opposite, it seems that the ones who espoused the warfare you are advocating were, precisely, 20th leftists, such as the Communists. The case against disproportionate response in war rests soundly on more than 1600 years of moral thought. And not the kind of moral thought espoused by peace loving, tree-hugging, weed-smoking lefties, believe me...
Posted by: Ignacio at Jul 14, 2006 2:28:49 PM
Hizbollah is categorized by the Council of Europe as a terrorist organization. The basis of our decision to attack Afghanistan was that the Taliban government refused to denounce Al Qaida. The Lebanese government DID denounce the Hizbollah incursion, but it doesn't give much evidence of either being willing to or strong enough to disarm a terrorist organization. Why? Because it's so big and powerful. So why shouldn't Israel feel that this is a very serious threat to its existence? And just exactly what DID Hizbollah think would happen if they captured Israeli soldiers INSIDE Israel and attacked Israeli cities with rockets? Lebanon's laid back attitude toward Hizbollah's aggression against Israel is surely a far greater threat to Israel than the Baathist regime in Baghdad was to America.
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Jul 14, 2006 2:29:12 PM
And, no, England didn't attack bomb factories or enablers or sympathizers in Ireland - or in the USA from where groups were sending guns and money.
This analogy would make sense if the relationship between the Irish government and the IRA (and the US government and the IRA) was equivalent to the relationship between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah. But I highly doubt that is the case. The IRA didn't have government ministers, and I don't think that the IRA had de facto control over large swaths of Ireland, as Hezbollah controls south Lebanon.
Posted by: mark j at Jul 14, 2006 2:31:19 PM
Marianne,
Your response is well-taken, but it falls short of the more accurate analogy that I proposed. I'd really be curious to hear your answer to my question.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jul 14, 2006 2:33:23 PM
Wow. I never figured Pope Benedict for a Hezbollah-lover.
But I should have known better after that "No but yes" to homosexual priests.
Posted by: BillyHW at Jul 14, 2006 2:35:37 PM
BillyHW,
Apparently, you've been out of the loop. As has been widely reported, Benedict XVI has replaced Sodano because he was unsympathetic to the pope's tougher stance toward militant Islam. Lots of strange things happen during lame duck periods.
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Jul 14, 2006 2:39:50 PM
BillyHW,
I mentioned LittleGreenFootballs earlier. Why don't you go there? You can join in all the anti-Catholic venom you like.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21535_Vatican_Condemns_Israel&only.
Posted by: Tim F. at Jul 14, 2006 2:40:26 PM
Cardinal Secretary of State Angelo Sodano today made the following declaration on Vatican Radio:
If he was "replaced", why is he still Secretary of State?
Posted by: BillyHW at Jul 14, 2006 2:51:30 PM
As I read the Catechism, the judgment of whether or not a war is just is left up to the government waging it. The Church is not in the business of -- and has not the competence -- to certify specific wars as "just" or "unjust".
Posted by: Paul, Just This Guy, You Know? at Jul 14, 2006 2:58:27 PM
Paul, don't you know anything? The Catechism clearly states that the judgment of whether or not a war is just is left up to Mark Shea.
Posted by: BillyHW at Jul 14, 2006 3:00:06 PM
MikePetrik:
After some thought, I think possibly England might have targeted the rocket launch sites (assuming rockets were coming from Ireland into England). Possibly. And after a lot of consultation with the Irish government. But what an uproar it would have caused!
Even so, I can't imagine that England would have attacked power stations and water plants (as in Gaza, causing over a million people to be without lights, cooling, cooking and water to wash with and to drink), fuel reserves (as in Lebanon), bridges, roads and public buildings and airports (as in Gaza and Lebanon), arrested 1/3-1/2 of the elected officials (as in Gaza), or rolled into Dublin in tanks and bulldozers. I can't imagine it, can you?
Posted by: marianne at Jul 14, 2006 3:00:52 PM
Paul: the judgement on the justice of a war rests on the governemnt who wages in the same way that the judgement of the conformity to God's law of our actions is left to us. That doesn't mean that no one else is qualified to judge those actions from a moral standpoint, which is -I think- what you imply.
Posted by: Ignacio at Jul 14, 2006 3:03:10 PM
"I can't imagine it, can you?"
No, marianne, in fairness I can't. But isn't that explained by the factual differences summarized by mark j in his last post?
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jul 14, 2006 3:05:34 PM
My understanding of a proportionate response to the seizure of 2 Israeli soldiers, based on the most recent exchange rate of 1 Israeli per 435 terrorists is that the proper thing for Israel to do is to enter Lebanon, capture 870 members of Hezbollah, and open negotiations.
Is anyone thinking this would be less messy than what Israel is actually doing?
PVO
Posted by: mulopwepaul at Jul 14, 2006 3:08:43 PM
Ignacio:
I didn't come up with the term "asymetrical warfare." It's been in the lexicon of military and geopolitical analysis for twenty years, at least.
What concerns me is not that leftists regularly use Just War theory to justify their own anti-American/anti-Israeli stance; it's that being associated with a dying movement like leftism, Just War theory itself becomes irrelevant.
And I, too, am intimately familiar with terrorism. I worked in an office building in Crystal City, VA on 9-11, and watched the smoke and flames rise from the Pentagon, just a 1/2 mile up the road. Paper from the Pentagon offices were blown 1/2 mile down the road and floated on the breeze. I remember catching them as my colleagues and I evacuated the building. They were falling like snowflakes. I know people who were driving on 95 that morning and were eyewitnesses to the event.
Since then I've started reading the body work around the concept of jihad. This isn't Western analysis, this is primary source material written by Al Qaeda and previous radical Islamic ideologues, including the Ayatollah Khomeini. It also includes, Sheihk al-Ayyri, Hassan Al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, Ala Maududi, Azzam al-Ansari, the Awakening Sheiks, Abdullah Azzam, Abu Bakr al-Naji, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Abu Musab al-Suri, and numerous others.
Are you familiar with the hundred-year long body of work used to justify jihad against non-Muslims, and specifically "Jews and Crusaders"? Do you know anything about our self-proclaimed enemy?
How does Just War theory fit into al-Naji's strategy document, The Management of Savagery? You can read it; it's translated and available at the Combating Terrorism Center. How about Sayyid Qutb's justification for near-enemy attacks in Milestones and Under the Shade of the Quran?
And speaking of proportionality: if Iran attacks Israel with several thousand rockets in one week, does that give Israelis the right to fire 700 rockets back? I would bet your answer is, "No."
Anti-war activists hold Israel (and America) to a different standard. A standard that fluctuates as events warrant. And for that reason alone, anti-war/anti-American activists are irrelevant.
Posted by: TheLeague at Jul 14, 2006 3:09:57 PM
Billy HW,
Cardinal Sodano is still Secretary of State because his replacement, Bertone, doesn't take office until September 15.
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Jul 14, 2006 3:18:14 PM
MG and Marianne:-
MG: You're right. The strategic bombing offensive against Germany was indeed based on the theory that if the civilian population were hit hard enough, they might crack. It was, however, a fall-back option. The British began by trying precision attacks, but found that daylight raids were prohibitively expensive (50% or more of the attacking force). Hence they switched to night bombing, which meant attacking cities because, given the navigational methods of the time, they were incapable of hitting anything smaller. Often they couldn't even hit those. In early 1942 one British bomb in a hundred was falling within a one-mile radius of the aiming point.
That doesn't represent the last word on the moral issues involved, though. Until June 1944, bombing Germany--however ineffectively--was the only way the Allies could attack the Nazi war machine at its source. To refrain from such attacks on humanitarian grounds meant the continuation of a war in which a daily average of 25,000 people were losing their lives, most of them victims of the Axis. (By way of comparison, the official German count of those killed in the Dresden raids was 20,240.) If there was realistically no other way of shortening the war and reducing the horrific toll of those being unjustly killed, were the Allies justified even in resorting to the extreme step of directly targeting civilians? I truly don't know--it's something on which I go back and forth. It does seem to me, though, that Just War doctrines elaborated in the High Middle Ages, when it was often difficult to tell whether one was being attacked by soldiers or just being mugged by robbers, take us only part of the way in trying to resolve such dilemmas.
Marianne: your analogy would work only if the Irish Government were complicit in, or indifferent to, IRA/INLA attacks. This was emphatically not the case. Throughout the conflict, the Irish taxpayer was spending three times as much per capita as his British counterpart on Border security, which in practice meant anti-IRA operations. Under emergency legislation, IRA suspects could be convicted of membership of an illegal organisation (and imprisoned for two years) if a Garda officer of the rank of Chief Superintendent or above affirmed that he believed the accused was an IRA member. Very many were. Under section 31 of the Broadcasting Act, IRA members or spokesmen were not permitted to appear on TV or radio. These measures occasioned much angst among civil libertarians, but were persisted in nevertheless. If there's any parallel with the treatment of Hizb'allah in Lebanon, I'm unable to see it.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel at Jul 14, 2006 3:19:56 PM
"I can't imagine it, can you?"
Actually in the days of the Empire Great Britain would routinely send out punitive expeditions to invade territories where raiders were mounting expeditions into British controlled territory. Happened all the time in Afghanistan for example. After America got sick of the raids of Pancho Villa in the early part of the last century we sent an army into Mexico, against the wishes of the Mexican government, under Blackjack Pershing to chase Villa.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Jul 14, 2006 3:21:52 PM
Cardinal Sodano is still Secretary of State because his replacement, Bertone, doesn't take office until September 15.
And who's fault is that?
It's time to stop making excuses for our pope.
Posted by: BillyHW at Jul 14, 2006 3:27:28 PM
Paul, Just This Guy, You Know,
It's true that Catholic teaching is that those who hold authority in the state have the right to make practical application of just war principles. In a democracy, since government derives its God-given authority from the consent of the governed and since public opinion is an important element in policy making, citizens have a serious obligation to keep apprised of the major contours of matters of grave public import and to express their opinions.
My complaint about Cardinal Sodano is NOT that he expressed his opinion about Israel, but that his analysis and application of Catholic principles is mighty thin gruel. Nothing of substance, in contrast to very many high level statements (some from him) of Church authorities in the past. His unfortunate statement gives precious little indication that he's well-informed, that he's given attention to relevant just war principles, or that he's analyzing things from an ecclesial, as opposed, to a partisan perspective. I disagree with Fr. Richard Neuhaus on some things, but he's certainly correct when he complained about the tendency of certain Vatican officials to intervene in matters of international relations in primarily politically correct political categories, rather than the sharp theological and moral analysis that their office commits them to. This is not Sodano's finest hour. Stay tuned and see what Cardinal Ruini and others say about this. There's always plenty of backroom fighting about who will say what when in these matters. An occupational hazard of diplomacy is the habit of turning away from transparency and plain speaking.
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Jul 14, 2006 3:29:31 PM
This is not Sodano's finest hour.
Don't forget about the person who put him there. And also the person who kept him there this long. It's not their finest hour either, since ultimately they are the ones who are responsible for statements that come out of the Vatican.
It's time to stop making excuses for them and place the blame where it lies.
Posted by: BillyHW at Jul 14, 2006 3:33:13 PM
The question of proportionality rests on various factors, and one factor that it seems to me is being ignored is the nature of the conflict.
In the IRA case, Britain could have made a solid ethical argument for targeted attacks on certain populations in Ireland and the USA. Not bombings, obviously, as that would have been impractical, but kidnappings, murder, harassment, etc., all on the grounds that these populations were de facto at war with Britain.
Britain did not take such action because it understood that the nature of the conflict had historical and sectarian elements, and that any drastic action such as the above would only exacerbate the situation.
It's the same with the Israeli situation. Certainly there is an argument that there is a population supporting Hezbollah and that they are at war with Israel, and so they are fair game. However, given the nature of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, is such a response optimal? Keep in mind that a population much larger than those supporting Hezbollah are affected. What are the long-term consequences? Will this result in a less militant population or less support for Hezbollah?
Based on what we've seen for 50 years, I would answer no.
Given the nature of the Palestinian grievance, and given the nature of ethnic conflict, I would venture that acceptance of the state of Israel is probably as much concession as the Palestine populace will ever be willing to give. The rest is up to Israel.
Posted by: Saul at Jul 14, 2006 3:39:14 PM
"I would venture that acceptance of the state of Israel is probably as much concession as the Palestine populace will ever be willing to give."
They haven't ever conceded that; so what do we think would make them change their minds?
"The rest is up to Israel."
Events of the last 72 hours seem to demonstrate that Israel has reached the same conclusion.
PVO
Posted by: mulopwepaul at Jul 14, 2006 3:43:32 PM
Oh, I forgot. If living near or experiencing terrorists acts makes someone knowledgeable about the nature of the terrorist threat, then I can relate to you my daily experience in a landscape of terrorism here in Washington, DC.
I live three blocks from the scene of one of the DC Sniper murders, an old man who was crossing Georgia Ave. I used to work in Rockville, MD. The snipers drove down Rockville Pike on that first day of their murder spree; they parked in the parking lots in its notorious strips malls and shot at people: one pumping gas, another sitting down on a bench, and still another mowing a lawn. I am intimately familiar with every one of those locations, and could picture them as news of the murders were reported.
The snipers were inspired to murder infidels through the teachings of radical Islamist group called Jammat al-Fuqra, an American group founded by a Pakistani imam.
Every morning for a year I would pass by a Ride-On bus dedicated to the memory of a bus driver murdered in his parked bus as he stood up to stretch.
Every week I step into a metro system that has been routinely targeted for attack. The former operational head of Al Qaeda, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, even said he thought about attacking the DC metro. The train passes by the Brentwood postal center that was shut down in late 2001 after postal workers died from an anthrax attack. Every day for months I watched dozens of men and women in puffy white Hazmat suits buzz around the facility like aliens. I've worked in buildings targeted, including the IMF building.
None of this makes me an expert on our shared enemy. But I do know this. They hate Western women. So much so that in his final letter to his fellow hijackers. Mohammed Atta suggested picking out a flight attendant and slitting her throat in front of the other passengers. He described it using the terms used to describe the lambs sacrificed during Islamic holidays. The hijackers described their victims as "meat." Sure enough, the body of a flight attendant was exhumed from the WTC site with her throat cut.
I prefer to see men in the West fight this enemy and prevent another woman becoming a blood sacrifice for radical Islam. It's important to take this enemy seriously. You see, they take themselves very seriously. The Iranian radicals actually believe they can bring about the end times and the return of the 12th imam by attacking Israel.
Still if you would rather sit around parsing the Catechism, so be it.
Posted by: TheLeague at Jul 14, 2006 3:47:57 PM
DonaldR: I was addressing the English in the 1980s, not in the days of empire. You know, after Geneva Conventions, the UN, etc. More like now than 1800.
Mike, Blind and MarkJ:
The Lebanese govt. has no control over hezbollah. Even President Bush acknowledges that.
My point was really not meant to be an equation of IRA=hezbollah but just an observation of what restrained response might look like. I really don't understand the justification for destroying water facilities for a million people when a soldier is kidnapped in order to exchange him for women and children being held. And that was just the beginning of the response.
Posted by: marianne at Jul 14, 2006 3:48:00 PM
Saul,
The US would never have tolerated assasinations by the British on American soil, or the seizing or harassment of American citizens on American soil. Never.
Posted by: Press at Jul 14, 2006 3:53:00 PM
Hello, Saul,
Israel is not targeting Lebanese Shiites, but Hezbollah militants. And, unlike Hezbollah, they leaflet areas that are going to be bombed so that civilians have time to leave. POPULATIONS supporting Hezbollah are not legitimate targets, but militants are.
Many priests in Ireland repeatedly condemned IRA terrorism in sermons and writings. How many Muslim clerics in Lebanon have repeatedly condemned Hezbollah targeting of civilians? Haphazard shelling of towns and villages is never a morally legitimate tactic. This is what Hezbollah is doing NOW to Israel. And a very strong case can be made that they're far more interested in regional issues than Lebanese issues. Lebanon interests Hezbollah to the extent that Lebanese issues impact on regional Shiite fortunes. The real rogue here is Iran. Hezbollah would not exist if it were not for the Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran's financial and political support.
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Jul 14, 2006 3:54:15 PM
"I really don't understand the justification for destroying water facilities for a million people when a soldier is kidnapped in order to exchange him for women and children being held. And that was just the beginning of the response."
Is it your impression that Hezbollah fighters don't drink water? Or rather that no one should be significantly inconvenienced since Hezbollah was only kidnapping people "for the children?"
PVO
Posted by: mulopwepaul at Jul 14, 2006 3:56:02 PM
Or rather that no one should be significantly inconvenienced since Hezbollah was only kidnapping people "for the children?"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JHN9DMHomXI&search=this%20one%27s%20for%20the%20children%20new%20kids
Posted by: BillyHW at Jul 14, 2006 3:59:13 PM
I think Marianne is correct. It's hard to justify cutting off water and electricity to the civilian population in Gaza. However, anything designed to prevent arms and supplies reaching Hezbollah is morally legitimate as long as civilians are warned ahead of time about operations impacting their safety. And to the extent that the Lebanese government supports Hezbollah (some government officials do, many don't), to that extent the government itself can be held accountable, as the US with the support of the pope held the Taliban accountable for Al Qaida's terrorism. Perhaps, Israel could do more to try to reach parties in Lebanon who aren't allied with Islamist elements. Anything that drives a wedge between those elements in Lebanon working for Sharia and Islamic hegemony, on the one hand, and Lebanese Christians, on the other, is a step foreward. Tragically, demographics is not too helpful. Now if NFP were to be banned for Lebanese Christians ... LOL
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Jul 14, 2006 4:04:36 PM
I haven't read all the comments here - they certainly mounted up quickly - but the Vatican always seems to treat Israel as the oldest of the children, who is expected to show greater restraint all the while being pummeled by the younger unrestrained children - why? It seems simply because they believe Israel is smarter or has some greater experience or gifts, or it's just expected due to its being considered the most inately responsible....or they know Israel has a lot more tricks in its closets, unmatchable by their immediate enemies. The one that should be included in this particular statement but isn't is Iran (and Syria).
And the Vatican seems to be more influenced by its own who live in the areas of historically Christian population which is being wiped out. I think they feel that their living circumstances only get worse by the fighting by the other factions and that somehow Israel should watch out for them over and above the others who squeeze them out. Maybe they know at heart that Israel is the only one there they can have any influence over...that you can't reason with terrorists so you give up on the others! But Lebanon is rather impotent to act as Israel demands. It's been controlled and held hostage for years....kind of like an abused wife. She can get away only if she's willing to risk losing her life and those of her children.
Posted by: chris K at Jul 14, 2006 4:09:24 PM
I hadn't heard that Hizb'allah had abducted the two soldiers in order to exchange them for "women and children being held" by the Israelis. My impression was that Hizb'allah were seeking the release of individuals who were more...well, let us say, "useful" to them.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel at Jul 14, 2006 4:09:55 PM
"Is it your impression that Hezbollah fighters don't drink water?"
No, it was probably her impression that out of a population of 1.3 million, 1.3 million are not Hezbollah fighters.
Not having refrigeration or lights might be an inconvenience. Not having water is something far different. Try it sometime. With no end in sight until some foreign government rebuilds the power plant. Sort of like Hurricane Katrina without any help at all.
Donald, you make a perhaps inadvertent point. There is a colonial mentality in some of this.
Posted by: Joe at Jul 14, 2006 4:14:01 PM
TheLeague:
You are missing the point completely. I'll restate it as simply and clearly as I can for your convenience: it doesn't matter if you want to term the war you are fighting symmetrical, asymmetrical or whatever word you may use or coin to name phenomena that are far from new. It also doesn't matter if the enemy hates you more or less and it surely doesn't matter if you have been exposed to terrorist rampage or not (I came up with the example of the bombing just to make my point about proportional reaction more clear, but it seems that you also misssed the significance of this too). The point, is that ends do not justify means and that the conditions imposed by Just War Doctrine must be met in order to wage a war "justly". I suspect that Israel's reaction to the attacks of Hezbollah, which imply destroying the infraestucture of the whole Lebanon, might not qualify as just, since it is disproportionate and places a very heavy burden on the whole of the country, hardly composed by uniformly Hezbollah lovers.
Believe me, I hardly am a foolish peace lover and I certainly am aware of the grave danger that Muslim militants pose. But if you don't care about the justice of the war and it is simply a matter of "blow those bastards up" (as I gather from your inane comments about "parsing the Catechism"), you are listening to another tune and there is nothing that you need to be convinced of. You have already made up your mind. But I'd simply suggest you ponder the consequences that adhering to your position may have for your soul.
Regards
Posted by: Ignacio at Jul 14, 2006 4:18:02 PM