Calibrated Judgment

I've had some discussion on whether or not the criticism some Arab states have made of Hizbollah are actually moral judgements. I in effect said, "No, not really, they're political judgments." I would like to amend that: In this case, political judgment, because of the conflicting ideologies involved, is in fact a moral judgment. What follows is from an email intended as a continuation of that discussion:


...The point I'm making is just an extension of the one I made yesterday, that there is a new political reality and for moral clarity it's necessary to recognize that new reality. To question, for example, if Israel's response to the abduction of its two soldiers was properly "proportionate" is to assume two things: that this is just a conflict between Israel and Hizbollah; and that there's some moral equivalency between the two. In fact what you have is a Western nation with western values being attacked by representatives of a vicious and primitive ideology in what is a global war. I'm using the division in the Arab states --the people closest to this struggle and thus the people who most necessarily must see it clearly-- as an illustration and argument that the West --I mean primarily the liberals-- must learn to see it clearly as well.

This first is from an editorial in the Jerusalem Post:

What is strange about this war, almost five years after 9/11 and after
numerous follow-on attacks, is that - unlike World War II - the West is still
confused about who the enemy is, how to fight it, and even over whether it
is at war at all.

But the more advanced of the Arab states do see that it is a war:

CAIRO, Egypt — Foreign ministers of 18 Arab countries
held an emergency summit in Cairo Saturday over Israel's expanding assault
on Lebanon, but squabbles over the legitimacy of Hezbollah's attacks on Israel
— including the capture of two Israeli soldiers that sparked the 4-day battle
— appeared likely to keep participants from reaching a consensus, delegates
said.

The Saudi foreign minister appeared to be leading a camp of ministers criticizing the guerrilla group's actions, calling them "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts."
"These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them," Saudi al-Faisal told his counterparts.

Supporting his stance were representatives of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, delegates said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.

Another camp led by Syria defended Hezbollah
as carrying out "legitimate acts in line with international resolutions
and the U.N. charter, as acts of resistance," delegates said.

The point is, even though they find themselves in opposition to their own Arab brethren, the more advanced Arab states recognize that that fascistic brand of Islam has to be destroyed. And Bush has that same moral clarity:

President Bush, on a trip to Russia, said it was up to Hezbollah "to lay down its arms and to stop attacking...Bush blamed Hezbollah and Syria for the escalating violence in the Middle East."In my judgment, the best way to stop the violence is to understand why the violence occurred in the first place," Bush said. "And that's because Hezbollah has been launching rocket attacks out of Lebanon into Israel and because Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers."

And Putin, not a very nice guy, has at least that same political clarity:

Putin said it was unacceptable to try to reach political goals through abductions
and strikes against an independent state. "In this context we consider Israel's
concerns to be justified," he said. At the same time, he said, "the use of
force should be balanced."

On the question of the use of force there's this element:

"The level of damage inflicted by Israel appeared finely calibrated. For example, a missile punched a hole in a major suspension bridge on the Beirut-Damascus road but did not destroy it, unlike less expensive bridges on the road that were brought down. An Israeli strike hit fuel depots at one of Beirut's two power stations — sending massive fireballs and smoke into the sky — but avoided the station itself."

The point here is that Israel does consider Lebanon, minus Hizbollah, as a natural ally, and in fact does not want to destroy that nation. (They do publicly hold the Lebanese government responsible, but that's because Hizbollah, though only twenty percent of the government, is the party with the guns. If Israel publicly allows itself to be swayed by requests from the government, in fact those request are going to be from Hizbollah, because the rest of the government, though they want to see Hizbollah destroyed, is afraid to say that.

So this is some of the complexity that goes into making correct moral judgments as to what's going on. Opposed to that is this stupidity from David Ignatius of the Washington Post, the expression of a typical brainless liberal:

The first [point] is that in countering aggression, international solidarity
and legitimacy matter. In responding to the Lebanon crisis, the United States
should work closely with its allies at the G-8 summit and the United Nations.
Iran and its proxies would like nothing more than to isolate America and
Israel. They would like nothing less than a strong, international coalition
of opposition....The way to blunt Hamas is to build a strong Palestinian
Authority that delivers benefits for the Palestinian people. The way to curb
Hezbollah is to build up the Lebanese government and army. One way to boost
the Lebanese government (and deflate Hezbollah) would be to negotiate the
return of the Israeli-occupied territory known as Shebaa Farms.... A final obvious lesson is that in an open, interconnected world, public opinion matters. This is a tricky battlefield for an unpopular America and Israel, but not an impossible one. To fight the Long War, America and Israel have to get out of the devil suit in global public opinion. For a generation, America maintained a role as honest broker between Israel and the Arabs. The Bush administration should work hard to refurbish that role."

"Public opinion matters" he says. He means the opinion of the people who think like him, people living in a tiny ancient box, who think that the bad guy is Israel, and that an "honest broker" would make them stop. But the people who naturally hate Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, a few others, know that in this case it's not Israel that's on the wrong side of virtue.