« Audio pamphlets | Main | Like the sun rising and setting »
August 22, 2006
A matter of proportion
In his column, Sandro Magister summarizes statements and actions from the Vatican re/the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Magister offers several different views of the situation from various experts, puts the Pope's statements in context, and ends with an essay by Pietro de Marco - a professor at the University of Florence and at the Theological Faculty of Central Italy, as well as an editorialist for Avvenire, a Catholic daily.
At first it was not known – or perhaps this lack of understanding was feigned – that Hezbollah had established a strong logistical and offensive position along the border, and it was not foreseen that, in consequence, Israel’s response to Hezbollah would, in the course of the battle, turn into a response to an armed aggressor nation on its border. The Holy See did not know this. But when the evidence and information clarified the terms of the conflict, one would have expected the Church of Rome to recognize the “proportionality” of Israel’s response, although this would not have meant ending its reminders of the suffering of the people involved and the urgency of peace.
It can no longer escape anyone, even a primarily spiritual authority like the Church of Rome, that what exploded in the hands of the Hezbollah fighters suddenly made visible – in organization, weaponry, and fortifications – a crucial piece in Tehran’s bid for hegemony. This is why, following the limited understanding available at first, the diagnosis of “disproportion” almost completely disappeared from the statements and comments of the Vatican authorities.
We are thus required to reason according to the precepts of the human intellect, instead of expressing nothing more than assessments in accordance with values. Judging according to values is certainly necessary, but under conditions. Hasn’t the process of verifying and clarifying the facts been demonstrated as no less necessary? The assessment of “proportionality” brings with it the implicit recognition of Muslim organizations and nations as enemies, today, of Israel and the West. This does not imply the assertion – one that is feared rather than desired, and not only by the Holy See – that Islam is in itself an enemy.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Until the Vatican takes up its secular responsibilities it will continue to make errors. Let a fund be raised and the Pope send 10 peacekeepers, responsibly, to help solve conflicts. Forced to face the reality of sending men out to possibly die, an equally Catholic vision will emerge, one that will know ahead of time what a Hezbollah is and what it is up to, and not just after the fact.
Posted by: TM Lutas at Aug 22, 2006 8:51:22 AM
TM wrote: "Until the Vatican takes up its secular responsibilities it will continue to make errors. Let a fund be raised and the Pope send 10 peacekeepers, responsibly, to help solve conflicts. Forced to face the reality of sending men out to possibly die, an equally Catholic vision will emerge, one that will know ahead of time what a Hezbollah is and what it is up to, and not just after the fact."
Of course, the Vatican is a real nation when it suits it. The time has come for a Pope without the pretense of a secular realm to govern. Ending the demands to be treated like a real international state would greatly enhance Vatican credibility.
Posted by: Jim at Aug 22, 2006 9:05:35 AM
I think this also makes it necessary for the Vatican to nuance the Just War doctrine. Today, with state-sponsored terrorism, where groups like Hezbollah are funded and given weapons by Syria and Iran, and where they establish their bases in private homes, schools, and mosques, there is no longer the same notion of "propotionality." Obvious proportionality only obtains with standing armies in the old wars of the past. With free-floating groups acting at the behest of nation-states, but not directly accountable to them, proportionality is much more at the discretion of the victims of their terror and genocide. Certainly, innocent lives will be lost in this process, since Hezbollah, et al., established their bases in civilian areas, but that is their intent. Victims of terrorist aggression do not have to be attacked unto death because their response is not "proportional."
Posted by: Janice at Aug 22, 2006 9:25:57 AM
Pope Benedict just like the late Pope is actually under a lot of constraint when it comes to calling the Muslims out. I know this because even in a moderate Muslim country like Malaysia which is home to a million plus Christians any statement from the Vatican which is seen as even tangentially supporting Israel creates difficulties for the local church heirarchy. This will manifest itself in the refusal of the authorities to grant permission to build churches to harrassing the converts to threatening statements in vernacular. While I was there during the last few weeks the anti-Israeli sentiment was manifest to the point that perhaps 80% of the Muslims would support the annihilation of Israel. In such a situation the Christians are understandably wary of any statements from the Vatican which give aid and comfort to Israel.
Offending the Jew boys on the other hand cost very little physically, just the occasional "strong statements" from the Foreign Ministry.
Posted by: Ivan at Aug 22, 2006 10:03:00 AM
This does not imply the assertion – one that is feared rather than desired, and not only by the Holy See – that Islam is in itself an enemy.
It might be a good idea to consider whether, regardless of what we fear or desire, the assertion might not be true. After all, it is the truth of an assertion, not the comfort it produces, that should dictate our belief in it. It would not mean that Christians should be the enemies of Islam or of Muslims. You don't have to be an enemy to have an enemy.
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Aug 22, 2006 11:11:08 AM
If one is defending Israel's response as proportionate, one really needs to address her strikes on civilian infrastructure and those Christian areas distant from Hezbollah territories.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Aug 22, 2006 11:19:16 AM
The time has come for a Pope without the pretense of a secular realm to govern. Ending the demands to be treated like a real international state would greatly enhance Vatican credibility.
On the other hand, the Pope's gotta live somewhere. Being the subject of a particular state might make him less independent. The Vatican in that sense acts much like D.C. does for the US - makes it not subject to any other temporal power.
Posted by: c matt at Aug 22, 2006 11:29:01 AM
Proportionality: "the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition."
Straight away, we are cautioned that the decks are already stacked against the pro-war position when it comes to modern weaponry. There is no doubt that Hezbollah's actions constitute an "evil to be eliminated". But what about graver "evils and disorders"?
How about (1) as Kevin Jones notes, the widespread destruction of Lebanese infrastructure, crippling the Lebanese economy that was on the verge of a tourist-driven boom; (2) the bombing of civilian areas, especially Dahaya in southern Beirut; (3) destabilizing a democracy that has finally thrown out the Syrian occupiers (after almost 30 years), and creating the conditions for a return to full-scale civil war; (4) boosting the strength and prestige of Hezbollah, and By extension, Iran and Syria.
As UN advisor Lakhdar Brahimi noted: "It was argued that the war had to continue so that the root causes of the conflict could be addressed, but no one explained how destroying Lebanon could achieve that. Rather than helping the so-called global war on terror, recent events have benefited the enemies of peace, freedom, and democracy. The region is boiling with resentment, anger, and despair, feelings that are not leading young Arabs and Palestinians towards the so-called New Middle East,".
Catholic moralist Germain Grisez had some similar thoughts about relying on a military decision to defeat terrorism in the wake of the Sept 11 Al Qaeda attacks.
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Aug 22, 2006 11:52:27 AM
Another point: how can anyone remotely familiar with Lebanese history think that such a military solution would work? The Lebanese civil war was rife with similar "big push" military actions from all sides (Syria, Israel, Lebanese Forces, PSP, PLO...). Each time the miltary solution brought narroe gains, but ultimately resulted in failure, leaving a lot of dead civilians and ruined infrastructure. [For an example, see this post: http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2006/08/operation-litani.html]
It was only a diplomatic solution-- the Taif accords-- that finally worked. And yet the Taif accords were not perfect, leaving Syria entrenched in Lebanon with a stranglehold over its government. That was why Michel Aoun refused to submit to Taif, and went into exile. We can all sympthasize with Aoun, holed up under siege, lacking allies as the Americans back the Syrian position. And yet Taif did bring peace and prosperity, even though it took 15 more years to get rid of the Syrians. But this was still a lot better than 15 more years of war...
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Aug 22, 2006 12:00:36 PM
It's been widely reported - and not denied - that the plan to attack Lebanon was on the table for over a year, awaiting a provocation for implementation.
Posted by: Lois at Aug 22, 2006 12:54:54 PM
"any statement from the Vatican which is seen as even tangentially supporting Israel creates difficulties for the local church heirarchy"
As though the opposite is not the truth! From the Israeli Ambassador hinting that he's taught the Pope a few things about Christian morality to Abe Foxman's slanders to the usual suspects at putative Catholic blogs.
Posted by: Greg at Aug 22, 2006 1:07:54 PM
"The region is boiling with resentment, anger and dispair...."
As it has ever since Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. As Israel has solidified its hold on the West Bank, the resentment and hatred have grown proportionally. That is the fundamental reason for Islam's rage against both Israel and the United States.
Israel supporters complain about what they call 'terrorists' being funded by Syria and Iran, while conveniently ignoring the state terrorism Israel exports with finds and arms supplied by the United States. They want us to believe Islam hates us because of our freedom. Pure propaganda.
Further, Israel has not missed a single excuse to kill and destroy on a far more massive scale than Hezbollah and Hamas will ever be capable of. As to Lebanon, it's clear Israel covets the water in the Letani River. They are getting more desperate for water every year and will not stop until they get it.
Posted by: Ferde Rombola at Aug 22, 2006 1:26:46 PM
"It's been widely reported - and not denied - that the plan to attack Lebanon was on the table for over a year, awaiting a provocation for implementation."
I should hope that Israel would have such contingency plans since it has been clear since 1982 when it was created that Hezbollah will never lay down their arms. I hope that the Israelis are planning for the next war now, since I suspect this farce of a cease fire will not endure for 60 days.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Aug 22, 2006 1:27:04 PM
"As it has ever since Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza."
That's rich! The Arabs have been trying to destroy Israel since 48. The PLO was founded in 1956 and was a successor to various other Palestinian terror groups. West Bank and Gaza are pretexts. The Arabs will hate Israel as long as it exists in any form.
As for the Litani nonsense, why did Israel withdraw from Lebanon in 2000 instead of simply annexing the region while they controlled it? The problem isn't water, the problem is the fanatic desire of the Arabs to destroy Israel.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Aug 22, 2006 1:32:57 PM
"any statement from the Vatican which is seen as even tangentially supporting Israel creates difficulties for the local church heirarchy"
As though the opposite is not the truth! From the Israeli Ambassador hinting that he's taught the Pope a few things about Christian morality to Abe Foxman's slanders to the usual suspects at putative Catholic blogs.
"Creating difficulties" in the latter case means diplomats and activists say mean things about the Holy See. In the former, it means everything from preventing churches being built to outright violence. Just another example of the moral equivalence dodge.
Posted by: Christopher Fotos at Aug 22, 2006 1:42:32 PM
"any statement from the Vatican which is seen as even tangentially supporting Israel creates difficulties for the local church heirarchy"
I have never heard a Lebanese, Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, (etc.) official - nor a Hamas, Hizbollah or PLO (etc.) spokesman, for that matter - attack the credibility of the Vatican. Never. Yet Israeli officials viciously attack the Vatican on nearly every matter and have done so for many years.
Recently, when the Pope said, "The Lebanese have the right to see the integrity and sovereignty of their country respected, the Israelis have the right to live in peace in their state, and the Palestinians have the right to a free and sovereign homeland of their own”, there was no reaction from the Arab world.
Yet that Vatican statement unleashed the ever-growling dogs of war in Israel, releasing a torrent of contemptuous vituperations.
We've just been through this; we can easily recall how Israeli officials and presumed Catholic bloggers reacted to the above statement of Pope Benedict.
Posted by: Nancy C. at Aug 22, 2006 2:35:33 PM
It puzzles me that there should be so much discussion on the proper role for the Church in the world of politics- it seems pretty clear to me that Jesus turned away from political involvement and the power that such involvement brings when He was tempted to do so by the devil. While the late Pope John Paul II was credited (and revered by Americans for it)with influence in the downfall of Communism, it seems to me there is a real temptation in straying from the Christian mission when one looks for such a role for the Church (I am not saying that JPII looked for such a role-it was God's grace that permitted him to be an instrument). The Apostles spread the gospel with preaching and sacrifice; that is the example we have to follow. That is the example Pope Benedict preached in that small village church, at Auchswitz, at Cologne and in Poland.
Posted by: Rose at Aug 22, 2006 3:58:26 PM
I would like my church just to be slower about making statements concerning current events. The Pope and the cardinals know that what they say isn't going to stop or start anything anyway; it's almost like they're afraid not to be on record early for the position expected from them, nowadays always non-violence whatever is going on. If the Vatican had just kept still during this most recent conflict would we now be condeming the Vatican for having said nothing? Do we believe that their having said something had any effect on the outcome today? My personal answer to both my questions is NO. If what you have to say cannot affect the outcome, better to keep still and conserve your powder until you can affect the outcome.
Posted by: Caroline at Aug 22, 2006 4:37:11 PM
Kevin Jones - Such defenses can't be done properly in the abstract because the principles involved are not absolute. What Israel is being charged with generally is violating the law of war regarding immunity of civilians. But this immunity is removed by the presence and operation of military units close to those civilians. A school is not immune if it was built on top of a Hezbollah bunker and blowing up that school is not an Israeli violation of the laws of war no matter how many school children Hezbollah ensured were in it. In fact, setting up such a situation is a war crime perpetrated by Hezbollah.
But lay out the facts and make specific accusations. They can be discussed rationally. I certainly don't think that Israel is any more immune from committing war crimes than any other nation on earth.
Morning's Minion - As a spoiling attack, Israel's actions would certainly be justified by the Church. If 1701 gets implemented it will put an end to decades of violent militia activity on Israel's northern border and make a lasting peace possible.
Unless you have an in with Mossad or perhaps the IDF, we don't know why Israel ratcheted things up to the level that they did, nor why they stopped when they did. This should lead to humility in assigning blame and accusation.
Lois - We have plans to nuke Vatican City. I guarantee it. Such contingencies are drawn up and gamed out by militaries the world over. In peacetime, that's a significant part of their job. To say that a country had a plan to invade its neighbor is to announce a bland truism. Virtually all of them do.
Nancy C. - The muslims tend to express their displeasure with guns, knives, and bombs. The Church is under pressure wherever it comes in contact with Islam.
Rose - When Jesus said that those who have no purse should sell their cloak and buy a sword, what do you think he meant? If the Church is never meant to use arms to further its goals whatever would the sword be used for?
There are those who want to kill us. The Pope does have a Swiss Guard. Were he to send even one to Lebanon, to Iraq, to East Timor, it would require Vatican intelligence to think on lines it has not for a very long time and to revitalize an area of our thinking that sorely needs an update.
It is not that just war doctrine as it stands now is wrong. It is that we are entering an era of lies and it is becoming so easy to trick the Pope and our Church into supporting the liars.
Posted by: TM Lutas at Aug 22, 2006 5:08:56 PM
Caroline-
"If what you have to say cannot affect the outcome, better to keep still and conserve your powder until you can affect the outcome."
I'm grateful you weren't around to advise Jesus, or Paul, or Polycarp, or Augustine, or Aquinas, or Thomas More, or Edmund Campion - to name but a few who spoke and stood because it was True.
I think the world was paying attention to what Pope Benedict had to say. Were it not, the Israelis wouldn't have tried so hard (though unsucessfully) to discredit his remarks. He wasn't speaking of passing matters but of eternal principles and everyone heard and remembers.
Posted by: TR at Aug 22, 2006 5:51:19 PM
TM Lutas,
You write "As a spoiling attack, Israel's actions would certainly be justified by the Church". The Vatican did not support our pre-emptive attack of Iraq and, from the beginning of the Israeli/Hezbollah fracas, said nothing that could be even grotesquely twisted into a "justification" of the "disproportionate" (their word) destruction of infrastructure and killing of civilians. They wanted an immediate ceasefire all the way through. This is hardly a "justification" of "a spoiling attack". By the way, according to today's news, the Israelis used cluster bombs which are still killing civilians.
My point about the plans was that it has been acknowledged that the Israelis were intending to attack as a possible prelude to our attack on Iran and that they weren't suddenly surprised by a need to fight for their existence as a state, which wasn't in any danger. This is not to say Hezbollah was not dangerous but that it could never have overwhelmed Israeli forces.
"Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared," said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. "In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, when it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles and attacking Israel. By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board."
More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail. Under the ground rules of the briefings, the officer could not be identified.
In his talks, the officer described a three-week campaign: The first week concentrated on destroying Hezbollah's heavier long-range missiles, bombing its command-and-control centers, and disrupting transportation and communication arteries. In the second week, the focus shifted to attacks on individual sites of rocket launchers or weapons stores. In the third week, ground forces in large numbers would be introduced, but only in order to knock out targets discovered during reconnaissance missions as the campaign unfolded. There was no plan, according to this scenario, to reoccupy southern Lebanon on a long-term basis.
Israeli officials say their pinpoint commando raids should not be confused with a ground invasion. Nor, they say, do they herald another occupation of southern Lebanon, which Israel maintained from 1982 to 2000 -- in order, it said, to thwart Hezbollah attacks on Israel. Planners anticipated the likelihood of civilian deaths on both sides.
San Francisco Chronicle, July 21
Posted by: Lois at Aug 22, 2006 6:14:23 PM
Caroline, I respectfully disagree with your remarks. I also think your slightly patronizing tone inappropriate. As they say in your English idiom, this man has forgotten more about theology and philosophy and politics than you will ever know. It is my view that the Pope's very active engagement on the recent conflict has had a great influence on keeping Lebanon's rights and security and the fate of its civilian people, front and centre, particularly after the meeting in Rome failed. I would suggest that in making judgments of the Holy Father in this area, one should remember that he has a pastoral mission to minister to all peoples, not just Israelis or American Catholics! I despair when I read the majority of the comments on these blogs- the fate of Israel seems to be all that the vast majority of people in America care or talk about. Why? What about the others involved in the conflict? Don't they count? I understand that Israel suffered the loss of 6 million Jewish lives in the Holocaust, and their historical experiences inform their world view, and Israeli ties with the US are very strong, but what about the others who are in this conflict? Aren't their lives precious in the sight of the Lord and therefore a concern for the Pope? I have to smile when I think how one of the oft-heard complaints last April was that the newly elected Supreme Pastor had no pastoral experience; after all, he was just a famous theologian and academic. Now that he is showing himself to be a very good Pastor, with loving and active concern for all of his flock, the complaints are flying thick and fast that his thinking (on just war) is muddled and inconsistent.
Posted by: Rose at Aug 22, 2006 7:00:32 PM
TM Lutas-
In your response to my post, rather than address the fact of no governmental excoriations of our Holy Father or attacks on his credibility, you resort to unjust stereotype and betray a disappointing rascist prejudice, I regret to so baldly say.
This was my point:
"I have never heard a Lebanese, Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, (etc.) official - nor a Hamas, Hizbollah or PLO (etc.) spokesman, for that matter - attack the credibility of the Vatican. Never. Yet Israeli officials viciously attack the Vatican on nearly every matter and have done so for many years".
They may not agree with him but they don't say he doesn't understand or he has no right to speak or that he sympathizes with terrorist attacks, etc. - all of which various Israeli officials have said of Pope Benedict.
Posted by: Nancy C. at Aug 22, 2006 8:22:12 PM
TM Lutas-
In your response to my post, rather than address the fact of no governmental excoriations of our Holy Father or attacks on his credibility, you resort to unjust stereotype and betray a disappointing rascist prejudice, I regret to so baldly say.
This was my point:
"I have never heard a Lebanese, Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, (etc.) official - nor a Hamas, Hizbollah or PLO (etc.) spokesman, for that matter - attack the credibility of the Vatican. Never. Yet Israeli officials viciously attack the Vatican on nearly every matter and have done so for many years".
They may not agree with him but they don't say he doesn't understand or he has no right to speak or that he sympathizes with terrorist attacks, etc. - all of which various Israeli officials have said of Pope Benedict.
Posted by: Nancy C. at Aug 22, 2006 8:22:24 PM
Rose, you have hit the nail on the head! Israel supporters view the conflict from one perspective only; that of Israel. "[T]he others involved in the conflict" are irrelevant to them, almost as if they do not exist. Which is precisely how they've been programmed to think by Israeli and US propaganda. It's an affront to justice and fairness.
That's beginning to change as Israel's crimes become more and more evident.
Posted by: Ferde Rombola at Aug 22, 2006 8:40:05 PM
