With the deaths of over 50 Lebanese being attributed to an Israeli air strike, the whole issue of hostages and the lives of the innocent in times of war has come to the forefront. I’m not going to go into the particulars of that incident, as they are still emerging, but it is a good opportunity to discuss the ethics of such situations.
The concept of a hostage is an ancient one, and as most time-tested traditions, is a simple one: do what I demand or I will hurt this third party. In olden days, it was considered necessary that the hostage be someone with a connection to the party of whom the hostage-taker was making demands; we have “evolved” to the point where the hostage merely has to be an innocent third party. (Or, at least, plausibly innocent; false or willing hostages are new variations on the theme.)
Hezbollah has taken this ancient, simple philosophy and made it into an art form. They kidnapped over 30 Americans in Lebanon between 1982 and 1992, several of whom they tortured to death. In fact, they were the main players in the Beirut hostage-taking frenzy of that era, grabbing anyone they thought they could use as a bargaining chip. They hijacked at least one airliner, murdering an American Navy sailor who just happened to be on board. They have repeatedly invaded Israel and kidnapped Israelis to barter for captured prisoners — occasionally brutally killing them first. They set up permanent stations near, around, and even within the posts of the UN peacekeepers.
Hezbollah, though, has in the last few years achieved the unimaginable: they have taken a large portion of a sovereign nation hostage. Southern Lebanon is pretty much their country, and the legitimate Lebanese government is powerless, impotent, and irrelevant where Hezbollah holds sway.
In their recent fighting with Israel, they have put that potential to good use. They use homes and mosques (and, I suspect, schools and hospitals) as weapons depots. They launch their attacks from residential neighborhoods, sidling up next to homes and apartment buildings before firing their rockets and missiles.
This puts Israel in a bind. Under the strict interpretation of the laws of war (itself very nearly an oxymoronic phrase), it is the obligation of combatants to maintain their distance from innocents, those who might be harmed due to their proximity to legitimate targets. In fact, the blame for such casualties is clearly (and rightly) placed on Hezbollah in this case, and Israel is fully within their rights to attack and destroy any place that Hezbollah is using for offensive purposes.
So the legality of Israel’s actions — if they can prove that Hezbollah had been using such positions, and I believe they can — is beyond debate. The question then is whether or not they should.
The belief that seems to be at the core of Israel’s decisions is this: one does not make concessions to hostage-takers. The principles that law enforcement apply do not hold when expanded beyond an individual or small group; when the hostage-takers are part of a very large organization numbering possibly in the tens of thousands, with several other groups in ideological agreement, concessions become precedents.
Every time Hezbollah threatens innocents (either actively, with rocket and missile bombardments, for example; or passively, through human shields), Israel is placed with a harsh choice. Do they spare the innocent and give in to the demands? In the short term, it’s easy; in the long term, though, it endangers far more people. Once you’ve established the currency in which you are willing to pay, you can rest assured of a long line of people willing to sell you more.
It’s a basic principle of economics: you get more of whatever you subsidize. If you start “paying” for the lives of innocents, you’ll get offered more and more opportunities to buy their safety.
Once you pay the Dane-Geld, you never get rid of the Dane.
The way Israel seems to see it is that if they demonstrate that they will not be deterred by Hezbollah hiding behind the innocent, and in fact it is a losing tactic (it ties Hezbollah to a fixed position, and limits their ability to hide or flee), they will stop doing it. In the long run, they think, it will save more lives than it will cost. It’s an arguable position.
The choice between right and wrong is sometimes easy. But far too many times the choice is between two bad choices, and we have to decide which will not lead to the most good, but cause the least long-term harm.
I think Israel has made the right choice this time. I feel tremendous sympathy for those whose lives Hezbollah has placed at risk. I feel sympathy for those Israelis who will have to carry out the attacks against Hezbollah, regardless of the consequences for those innocents.
And I am filled with rage and contempt for those members of Hezbollah who have put their own survival and their own political ends above any and all sense of compassion, responsibility, or integrity.
LoveAmerica Immigrant..I wish you were right and the attack was staged or false. The whole world has been watching especially the USA and Israel. Their PM has apologised. Is this all to real incident the turning point in the war?..I hope the source (this time) is credible for you? No one is wondering whether it happened? Just why? and what will happen next?
Steve,
Look at the pictures themselves. THey show their children as trophies in their propaganda war. These terrorists are even willing to strap explosives on their teenagers to blow up the Is women and children. Even your own source acknowledge that it is Hez ‘s strategy to place their troops and weapons among the civilians. So thanks for confirming that Hez are placing their women/children in harm ‘s way on purpose for propaganda. The question is why the UN and the liberals in the west are so willing to provide the propaganda service for these terrorists?
Your logic and action will encourage the terrorists to use women/children as propaganda and shield to blow up more Is women and children. You should strongly condemn these terrorists instead of falling into their propaganda trap.
Steve,
BTW, Is is showing itself a more decent country/society and their PM apologized for civilians death even though these civilians are purposely put in such a position by the terrorists. The Hez took pride in murdering Is women/children.
You know the Hez ‘s strategy. Why don’t you condemn them for such inhumane action?
You’ve got to wonder, LoveAmerica, how the Lebanese people allowed Hez to do this to them. It’s what would happen to us if we allow the libs to have there way with this great country of ours. Denial, corruption, hypocracy, and, as Lee so persuasively shows us, arrogance are the bedrock of their morality. So much for open mindedness, now Israel must fight for its freedom yet another day.
Red Fog,
AS pointed out by the Lebanese blog, the Lebanese people are simply afraid of Hez because they know that these terrorists do not care about their lives and willing to blow them up any time. These are thugs. The world, according to the liberals’ viewpoint, are those who hate Is to begin with in any case. The “world” is willing to have the Jewish state to be destroyed by these terrorists and their Iranian masters, who are modern incarnation of Hitler. They turned a blind eyes towards these women/children who are being blown up or used as human shields for propaganda purposes.
BTW, this is another source for the record
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744426.html
IDF says it may not be responsible for Qana deaths
Lee,
If Hezbollah moves in, fires and leaves before Israel can bomb them, then why does Hezbollah fire near civilian housing? Think about that, Hezbollah can fire from an empty road and then move before being bombed by Israel, so there’s no need to use civilians as shields. The only purpose Hezbollah has for firing near civilian housing is to entice Israel to bomb a building. The Israelis have no means of knowing if any or how many civilians are in a building, but Hezbollah does.
That supports the argument that Hezbollah is manufacturing these tragedies in the hopes of gaining sympathy from liberals all around the world, and it’s working, and because it’s working, guess what strategy Hezbollah will continue to use. That’s right, they will continue manufacturing these tragedies, all because liberals are so easily fooled. Guess that makes you and your liberal ilk responsible for these tragedies. Keep it up, Hezbollah desperately needs your continued support.
Take your head out of your *ss, MacLorry:
“That supports the argument that Hezbollah is manufacturing these tragedies in the hopes of gaining sympathy from liberals all around the world, and it’s working, and because it’s working, guess what strategy Hezbollah will continue to use. That’s right, they will continue manufacturing these tragedies, all because liberals are so easily fooled. Guess that makes you and your liberal ilk responsible for these tragedies. Keep it up, Hezbollah desperately needs your continued support.”
No, they’ve got Bush’s support now. He’s cutting and running – the chicksh*t *sshole. Rice was slapped around by the Lebanese, and she came back to King George a failure — and now Bush is folding under pressure.
Hezbollah defeated Bush, and naturally the boot-licking Republican apologists are blaming the liberals – since when has Bush listened to liberal sentiment and used that to drive his policies you *sshat????
Never.
Get your head out of your *ss, dummy. King George failed again!
If Lee is not hypocritical, he would conclude that the liberal left and the Dem party is in the trash can wrt the ME, and especially Is-Hezbollah. It is good that Lee is trying to get to the right of Bush simply to have a chance to indulge in his infantile anti-Bush rant.
I think Lee has a good point. One major problem with Bush is that he has treated the liberals and Dems as serious politicians who care about securing the country (Education bill with Kennedy, gesture towards Clinton etc…). Instead he should realize that the liberals and the Dems are intellectually and morally bankrupt. All they care is to regain power and their chief passion is to hate Bush.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/36ff802a-1990-42fc-ac28-557d1d0ddeb3
The National Security Collapse of the Democratic Party
Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 12:49 PM
I have already posted on Democratic Congressman John Dingell’s extraordinary equivocation about the nature of Hezbollah: “I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don’t take sides for or against Israel.”
Both Dean Barnett and I have posted on the decision of Demcoratic leadership in both House and Senate to make the November campaign a referendum on cutting-and-running from Iraq.
The New York Times on Sunday endorsed Joe Lieberman’s challenger and Kossputin’s creation Ned Lamont because of the senator’s support for the war.
Now RawStory reports on Congresswoman Lynne Woolsey’s “The Iraq War Powers Repeal Act of 2006,” which has, incredibly, garnered 22 co-sponsors.
Incredibly, the Democratic Party’s commitment to national security has collapsed. It is absurd to even argue the case. If Democrats regain power in either House, they will oblige the country to retreat across a broad front in the war with Islamic jihadism, weakening Israel in the process, emboldening Iran even beyond that country’s already extraordinary fanaticism, and committing the country to –at best– a fortress America approach. When, as would inevitably happen, a jihadist government obtained WMD, the country would not be able to return to the battlefield, and those WMD would inevitably find a use somewhere in the world.
The country is confronted with the Iran/Syria/Hezbollah threat, and with a new threat in Somalia, and the Democrats want to retreat and hope for the best.
Lee,
You’re losing your grip on reality, probably because your brain is starved of oxygen with your head up your ass for so long. Israel is now on a roll crushing your Hezbollah buddies into the ground. Rice came back because the Lebanese wouldn’t talk unless there was an immediate cease fire. Well they didn’t get their immediate cease fire. Pull out all the stops Lee, Hezbollah needs your continued support, while there’s still hope.