"Proportionality"
Haven't read much yet today but have listened to news. "Disproportionally" seems to be dropping out of coverage, probably because it's becoming clear that nobody would be particularly upset if a lot of Hizbollian types got killed, so there's a new term to the same intent: "Collective punishment". This, "collective punishment", is bad. Very very bad. Shame. It apparently means that a building bombed is "collective punishment" because...? Actually, I don't understand the term. Apparently it means that if a man pulls a trigger in one spot and you bomb a building somewhere else, that's "collective punishment"...? I still don't understand. Apparently since the building didn't pull the trigger it's innocent and to bomb it thus is "collective punishment".
It is true that there are buildings that don't support Hizbollah, so if every building not caught in the act of pulling a trigger is innocent, then most buildings, presumably, are innocent, and are suffering "collective punishment".
Poor buildings.
But there are people who believe Hizbollah sometimes uses those buildings, sometimes hides in them. There are people who believe Hizbollah sometimes uses bridges and airports, and so they're bombed.
Poor buildings, poor bridges, poor airports. And shame on "collective punishment." But if this is a war, any element that aids the enemy and the loss of which will dispirit him, is a fair target, so how is bombing a building "collective punishment", and not war against Hizbollah?
Of course there are the numbers. Three hundred and some killed in Lebanon, only a few dozens in Israel. Would the "proportionalists" feel better if Israel had lost three hundred and fifty? Actually, considering the immense number of tons of precision ordinance Israel has dumped on Lebanon it seems that the proportion of dead to tons of explosives is pretty wimpy. It almost seems like Israel is targeting buildings.
And I don't believe I've ever before used so many quotes around two terms. That's because they just make no intellectual sense at all. They're not even code words, they're just noises. There's a habitual opposition to Israel. I can't see any other explanation for the prevalence of the two inapplicable terms. They're available, that's the only reason they're used. I don't believe most of the people using the terms are really on the side of Hizbollah, or really that much hate Israel. I expect most of the people using the terms, on a moments thought, would recognize that survival for Hizbollah, something assured if there is a ceasefire just now, is a victory for Hizbollah. I'm sure they don't want that. And yet they criticize and want the fighting to stop. It just has to be reflex, the tongue moving but the mind asleep.
Does this even need to be seriously discussed?
It is true that there are buildings that don't support Hizbollah, so if every building not caught in the act of pulling a trigger is innocent, then most buildings, presumably, are innocent, and are suffering "collective punishment".
Poor buildings.
But there are people who believe Hizbollah sometimes uses those buildings, sometimes hides in them. There are people who believe Hizbollah sometimes uses bridges and airports, and so they're bombed.
Poor buildings, poor bridges, poor airports. And shame on "collective punishment." But if this is a war, any element that aids the enemy and the loss of which will dispirit him, is a fair target, so how is bombing a building "collective punishment", and not war against Hizbollah?
Of course there are the numbers. Three hundred and some killed in Lebanon, only a few dozens in Israel. Would the "proportionalists" feel better if Israel had lost three hundred and fifty? Actually, considering the immense number of tons of precision ordinance Israel has dumped on Lebanon it seems that the proportion of dead to tons of explosives is pretty wimpy. It almost seems like Israel is targeting buildings.
And I don't believe I've ever before used so many quotes around two terms. That's because they just make no intellectual sense at all. They're not even code words, they're just noises. There's a habitual opposition to Israel. I can't see any other explanation for the prevalence of the two inapplicable terms. They're available, that's the only reason they're used. I don't believe most of the people using the terms are really on the side of Hizbollah, or really that much hate Israel. I expect most of the people using the terms, on a moments thought, would recognize that survival for Hizbollah, something assured if there is a ceasefire just now, is a victory for Hizbollah. I'm sure they don't want that. And yet they criticize and want the fighting to stop. It just has to be reflex, the tongue moving but the mind asleep.
Does this even need to be seriously discussed?
posted by mouse at 6:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home