I have so many thoughts on this topic, I'm not quite sure where to start. I guess I have to start with values.
I value Peace. Wow, way to go out on a limb, 'eh. War is bad. Yay, two for two on the controversy meter. We have an obligation as the rest of the world, to not allow this conflict to continue with the intensity that it is. The only way to stop a cycle of violence is to intervene and slow the cycle. Unfortunately, this conflict will not be solved, or stopped, by the parties involved. Even if Israel achieves its goals of wiping out Hesbellah (not likely) they will only do so through the obliteration of a large portion of Lebanon, or the middle east as a whole. Doing so will only serve to strengthen the conviction of the militants and drive the moderates closer to the extremes. Peace, must be the goal. Lasting peace can only be achieved be beginning with a temporary peace. The Bush/Harper/Israeli view that lasting peace can only be achieved through the obliteration of hesbellah is dangerous in that it only empowers Israel to continue to use force and violence to solve its problems and does nothing to address the root causes of the violence. I won't even begin to acknowledge that I have any idea as to what the root causes of the violence are, and that is part of the problem (I'll explain this in more detail later.) I know that I don't completely understand all of the issues involved, but I am trying.
To help myself try to understand the situation, I came up with a hypothetical parallel situation (which I am sure will get my phone tapped.) Hesbellah is an opposition political party in Lebanon with a military wing. Lebanon as a nation does not directly endorse its actions. This most recent conflict began with Hesbellah directing missile attacks at Israel from cities in Lebanon. To model this conflict I created the following hypothetical and asked myself what reaction I hope would come from it. Let's say that the NDP militarized and created a store of long range missiles in, oh, let's say Winnipeg. They then launched missiles from Winnipeg at the Pentagon. The problem for the United States in this situation is that the country of Canada has not attacked the US, just a group within Canada has. Israel's response would be akin to the US, in my simulation, explaining to the citizens of Winnipeg (some of whom are NDP supporters and some of whom are not) that they must leave their homes within the next few days before the Americans attack the city. This would inevitably be followed by attacks on Winnipeg, followed by attacks on other american targets by NDP forces in other Canadian cities. The cycle of violence propogates itself ad infinitum.
My question now is, how would I want the Americans to react reasonably. It is unreasonable to expect that the Americans not react, and to not use force in their reaction. However, I would hope that the Americans begin by approaching the Canadian government with a direct message. "You must stop these attacks immediately and deal with this rogue group, we will help you in any way that you request, but you must deal with this problem immediately. If you fail to do so in a timely manner, we have no choice but to invade." A message like this forces the Lebanese people to make a clear and conscious choice as a country to either support this group and enter war as a nation with Israel (the terms of combat are much more clearly defined in nation vs. nation conflict) or to reject this group and become an ally with their neighbours (perhaps starting a civil war, but with much more clearer lines). As it stands the conflict is muddy and the Lebanese civilians are caught in a state of disarray with multiple masters. The violence brought on by the Israelis only strengthens the resolve of the militants and drives the moderates closer to their defenders.
Which brings me to the bigger picture here. In Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan there are groups of militant armed extremists that are holding their respective countries hostage by engaging in battles with Judeo-Christian nations and coalitions. They have declared a Jihad, which is mobilizing a great many people to their cause, people who are willing to kill themselves in search of martyrdom. By responding with force we only strengthen their argument that they are engaged in a Jihad which only strengthens their force. The extremists become more motivated and many moderates become more incensed. This is a battle that cannot be won. The key to this conflict is to promote leaders in the moderate muslim community. The people of these countries (and let's include Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia in the argument) need to have their faith strengthened by home grown non-violent muslim leaders. The majority need to be encouraged that strength in their religion will only come by rejecting these extremists instead of supporting them. The citizens in their own countries must turn against groups like Al Queda, Hesbellah, and Hammas, for the good of their countries and for the good of their religion. Islam is not the problem, it is the solution.
I cannot pretend to know enough about the history and religion in this region, but this is my humble opinion based on what I do know now. Let me know what you know and think so that I can adjust my thoughts and/or support my beliefs with more knowledge.
In the future I will discuss the question "Why did muslims fly planes into buildings in New York City?" It is a very important question, that we need to be continually asking ourselves.
Posts
