Disproportionate Power?

It's the same old story: Zealous Islamic militants in the Middle East have touched off another potential region-wide military confrontation. The notorious Islamic Terrorist organization, Hezbollah, is responsible for the deaths of eight Israeli soldiers and the kidnappings of two. Israel has begun to act definitively, and the world is screaming.

Ho hum.

In a lot of ways, Hezbollah has given the state of Israel exactly what it has wanted: the opportunity to end them, in a manner of speaking. Since the deaths and kidnappings occurred, the Israeli Defense Forces have completed over 50 raids in Lebanon--a struggling democracy that has only recently been free from nearly 30 years of Syrian occupation.

The largest attacks, thus far, have been perpetrated on the largest Lebanese airport in Beirut and several air bases. And, if they haven't already, IDF leaders will soon begin targeting the offices of prominent members of Hezbollah in Beirut which will, without doubt, kill many civilians.

These future strikes will occur in the midst of an outcry from Europe over Israel's supposed "disproportionate" use of force. Apparently, countries like Russia, France and Great Britain want Israel to engage an enemy in a more fair manner.

This is completely laughable.

These countries do not practice what they preach, especially in Russia's case. But their hypocrisy is an issue for another day. The United States has also, in the past, compelled Israel to use restraint in their dealings with terror groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Not this time.

President Bush condemned the kidnappings in killings and placed the blame for the escalation squarely on the shoulders of Hezbollah. The United States also vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution decrying the use of force as excessive.

This argument about the "disproportionate use of force" is one that has some historical currency. This is the argument that is often cited to undercut the decision of the United States to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And, while I appreciate the merits of the argument in that case, it certainly does not apply here.

What the United States did in Japan was unconscionable. The firebombing of Tokyo and the subsequent nuclear strikes were certainly beyond the pale. The United States unjustifiably immolated an already defeated enemy. There were many, at that time, who believed that had the Allies lost World War II that it would have been Americans being charged with war crimes.

But I digress...

In Israel we have an example of first aggression being met with swift force. For Israel there is no alternative. No other nation on this earth has dealt with more terrorism than Israel has since they became a state in 1948--the fireworks that ushered in the birth of their nation came from the airpower of consolidated Arab militias.

To urge Israel to use restraint against an enemy that despises its very existence belies any understanding of their situation. The relation between Israel and its neighbors is not a simple matter of historical hegemony or anything else we tend to attribute international emnity to. In this case, acts of war are being committed with the goal of eventually eliminating the Jews as a race--sound familiar?

If you think I am exaggerating, do yourself a favor and find the text of the original charter of the Palestinian Authority. In it you will find that their stated objective was to drive the Jews "into the sea."

In truth, the culpability here seems endless. Israel will have to make an account for their unjustifiable use of power, when it truly occurs. The Lebanese government and those it governs will have to pay the price for their permissiveness--they, of course, know everything they need to know about Hezbollah and its ongoing operations. The United States will, once again, take a hit in the court of world opinion--but what else is new? And the once-great powers of old Europe will be caught sitting on their hands, as usual, creating new and more impotent U.N. Security Council resolutions.

My prediction: Israel's crippling of the infrastructure of Lebanon will force the Lebanese government into compliance with the Israelis and the creation of a tenuous partnership to rid the region of Hezbollah.

The outcome could, however, be seriously dire. This could be the beginning of a Lebanese Intifada that will further destabilize the region and, effectively, the entire globe.

Considering the potential consequences for Israel and the world, proportionally, I'd say they've got it just about right.