Comments on: Litani or Bust? http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/2006/08/10/litani-or-bust/ Culture, Politics, Academia and Other Shiny Objects Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:26:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Timothy Burke http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/2006/08/10/litani-or-bust/comment-page-1/#comment-1782 Timothy Burke Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:11:22 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=249#comment-1782 I agree with that, Sam. I think that's the way I've been using the point about proportionality: does Israel's military response to date achieve useful goals, service achievable objectives? And it's in relation to the proportionate *harm* of Hizbollah's initial provocations. Does one cross-border raid and rocket attacks threaten the survival of Israel, or put most of its citizens in mortal danger? No and no. Can those attacks be endured, mitigated? Yes. The current response puts Israel in a considerably more expensive and dangerous quandry than it was in before the counterattack on Hizbollah. That's the disproprotion here, the escalation: a huge response to a manageable if outrageous and unjust provocation that puts the state of Israel in an ever-more difficult and perilous situation. I agree with that, Sam. I think that’s the way I’ve been using the point about proportionality: does Israel’s military response to date achieve useful goals, service achievable objectives? And it’s in relation to the proportionate *harm* of Hizbollah’s initial provocations. Does one cross-border raid and rocket attacks threaten the survival of Israel, or put most of its citizens in mortal danger? No and no. Can those attacks be endured, mitigated? Yes. The current response puts Israel in a considerably more expensive and dangerous quandry than it was in before the counterattack on Hizbollah. That’s the disproprotion here, the escalation: a huge response to a manageable if outrageous and unjust provocation that puts the state of Israel in an ever-more difficult and perilous situation.

]]> By: SamChevre http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/2006/08/10/litani-or-bust/comment-page-1/#comment-1781 SamChevre Fri, 11 Aug 2006 14:28:02 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=249#comment-1781 I'm very nearly one of those "people who respond with fury at any version of the proportionality argument"--except in my case, it's "bristle at a misunderstood but common use of the proportionality argument." The problem is that people argue for proportionality between the wrong things. The things that are to be proportional are the benefit and the harm of the war, NOT the harm done by each side to the other. In other words--destroying the Japanese Empire was grossly disproportionate if you compare it to their attacks on the US. It was proportionate with the goal--to stop the brutalization of a large portion of the Orient by the Japanese--NOT with the initial attack. Similarly, destroying the army, government, and economy of the South was quite disproportional to the attack on Fort Sumter. Similarly, if you want to argue that Israel's response to the Party of God (Hezbollah) was disproportional, you need to argue in terms of the goals of both sides. The damage so far inflicted by Israel and that inflicted on Israel are not the things that need to be proportionate. I’m very nearly one of those “people who respond with fury at any version of the proportionality argument”–except in my case, it’s “bristle at a misunderstood but common use of the proportionality argument.”

The problem is that people argue for proportionality between the wrong things. The things that are to be proportional are the benefit and the harm of the war, NOT the harm done by each side to the other.

In other words–destroying the Japanese Empire was grossly disproportionate if you compare it to their attacks on the US. It was proportionate with the goal–to stop the brutalization of a large portion of the Orient by the Japanese–NOT with the initial attack. Similarly, destroying the army, government, and economy of the South was quite disproportional to the attack on Fort Sumter.

Similarly, if you want to argue that Israel’s response to the Party of God (Hezbollah) was disproportional, you need to argue in terms of the goals of both sides. The damage so far inflicted by Israel and that inflicted on Israel are not the things that need to be proportionate.

]]> By: Timothy Burke http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/2006/08/10/litani-or-bust/comment-page-1/#comment-1780 Timothy Burke Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:38:32 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=249#comment-1780 I'm thinking more that once you push to the Litani River, it becomes extremely difficulty to just "hand it over" to some sucker. As you say, lots of ifs. I think Hizbollah and its backers will in fact do everything they can to keep Israel stuck in the moral and political mud of occupation. I’m thinking more that once you push to the Litani River, it becomes extremely difficulty to just “hand it over” to some sucker. As you say, lots of ifs. I think Hizbollah and its backers will in fact do everything they can to keep Israel stuck in the moral and political mud of occupation.

]]> By: homais http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/2006/08/10/litani-or-bust/comment-page-1/#comment-1779 homais Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:01:17 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=249#comment-1779 Maybe I'm not reading you the right way, but it seems like you're taking a prolonged occupation as a given that follows from pushing to the Litani river. I suspect that's not Israel's goal - very politically poisonous, and almost certainly likely to fail just like it did in the 90s. I suspect they hope that if they can pacify that region, they'll be able to use the 'moment of victory' to hand it over to a peacekeeping force or maybe the Lebanese army, or some other poor sucker who has a mandate to (and this is their real hope) implement UN 1559. There are a lot of ifs in that plan, and I'm less opimistic about it <i>not</i> turning into a prolonged occupation than they seem to be, but I doubt that a longer occupation is their actual intention. Maybe I’m not reading you the right way, but it seems like you’re taking a prolonged occupation as a given that follows from pushing to the Litani river. I suspect that’s not Israel’s goal – very politically poisonous, and almost certainly likely to fail just like it did in the 90s. I suspect they hope that if they can pacify that region, they’ll be able to use the ‘moment of victory’ to hand it over to a peacekeeping force or maybe the Lebanese army, or some other poor sucker who has a mandate to (and this is their real hope) implement UN 1559. There are a lot of ifs in that plan, and I’m less opimistic about it not turning into a prolonged occupation than they seem to be, but I doubt that a longer occupation is their actual intention.

]]>