Lebanon & Israel: Why is everyone so surprised?
I must confess that this question is one of my biggest puzzlements about the media coverage of the war between Israel and Lebanon. By the way, I am using the term war, because only in Western diplomacy of the last several centuries has it been necessary to issue an announcement or piece paper saying the country is at war. Elsewhere in the world and in history, attacking another country -- as Hezbollah has Israel and Israel has retaliated to Lebanon -- usually meant one was at war.
Getting back to my original point though, the media has an air of surprise about them. CNN has expressed shock at Hezbollah's Anti-Semitic rhetoric. Hezbollah attacked Israel -- founded in 1948 as a homeland for the Jews. Last time I checked that qualifies as Anti-Semitic. This is one of the great ironies of this situation. Israel is often highlighted for her hostility toward her neighbors, but often omitted is the hostility of many Israel's neighbors toward Israel. War in 1948-49. War in 1967. War in 1973. The cycle continues. Why are they surprised? Hezbollah's goal in part is the elimination of Israel. That would suggest being Anti-Semitic.
A BBC interview with representatives from the Israeli embassy (BBC World News 8/7) questioned why the Israelis do not wait for a cease fire to eliminate the missiles from Hezbollah. The interviewer, however, like many commentators missed what is the critical point for Israel -- "A sustainable ceasefire". Sometimes in our agitation for peace -- a laudable goal, it can be missed that war and violence -- however distasteful -- are sometimes necessary. Journalist David Low wrote in a 1946 article for the New York Times that he had "never met anybody who wasn't against War. Even Hitler and Mussolini were, according to themselves." Simply against war is not always a virtue. It is usually assumed in a civilized society that war and violence are not desirable. In Britain, there is not a "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea for murder cases. It is assumed that one must be at least partly insane if one committed such a heinous act. (There is a "guilty, but insane" plea.) Yet, despite our distaste for violence, there are times when it must be contemplated.
For Israel, they are concerned with the LONG TERM security of their people and borders -- not simply a short term cessation of hostilities. Christians are sometimes uncomfortable with the Old Testament admonitions to the Israelites to wipe out their neighbors. The descendants of some of those neighbors are now in Palestine and Lebanon. Had the Israelites followed God's orders, would there be peace in the Middle East? That certainly is not a popular question. I am not arrogant to believe I have the answer to this question. Yet, it certainly does speak to the issue of being surprised over turmoil in the Middle East. It has a long history and short-term focused solutions will not hold. A longer view must be taken and unfortunately, sometimes the long-term solutions involve being willing and prepared to defend with arms.