Matthew Yglesias on Israel and Lebanon

Matthew Yglesias explains much better than I did why Israel's attack on Hezbollah is not in Israel's self-interest.  He begins as follows:

It's usually best in the American context to keep one's criticisms of Israel polite and measured, but there are times when it's better to be blunt in the hopes of achieving clarity. Israel's current war in Lebanon is strategically blinkered and morally obtuse. The idea that the United States or American Jews like me should support it out of friendship is akin to the notion that a real friend would lend a car to a drunk buddy after the bartender confiscates his keys. I understand why the Israeli government and public think this war is a good idea, but they're simply mistaken.

Note that Yglesias' article is already a few days old; subsequent events have only added support to his arguments.

Comments

[caveatBettor]

This is an unfortunate escalation. Would it be possible for a libertarian to see Israel to be acting in defense of its property and enforcement of its contracts?

The drunk driver metaphor is lost on me. Especially since Israel was fulfilling its contractual obligations, one recent example found here:

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/7e93b8efbe9e9723c1256d9000289335?Opendocument

[Jeremy]

Yglesia fails to identify why it is "morally obtuse" and what is even more interesting is what he said here,

"Were Israel's conflict with the Palestinians resolved, other challenges like Hezbollah would soon melt away."

I'm sorry, but it is not about a "Palestinian State" when Israel reclaimed the land in 1948-67 the Palestinians were refused by the Arab neighbors and basically villanized the Jewish state (basically that they are swine and they are going to steal the homes of the Palestinians.) It's not about the existence of a Palestinian state, it is about the existence of Israel. If Hezbollah is hiding among the Lebanese citizens and putting them in dangers way, what makes you think that they are somehow genuinely supporting the Palestinians?
In essence it boils down to the existence of Israel.

[the truth is ugly]

Yglesias is wrong.

Fundamentally, Israel had two options, both of which are unacceptable.

(1) Allow Hezbollah to continue its occasional murder of Israeli citizens inside Israel and to continue proclaiming that they had driven out the Israelis.

(2) Strike against Hezbollah, thereby re-gripping the Lebanon tar-baby and killing innocent civilians in the process.

~~~~

It can be argued that #2 is morally worse.

It has been pointed out that more Israelis have died (to say nothing of innocent Lebanese) than would have been the case if Israel had not done anything.

So why does Israeli support remain robust for its actions even though more Israelis have died since the fighting?

Because it's dangerous to let your enemies grow overconfident. They may act even more aggressively in the future.

Israel had to show a credible commitment to use overwhelming force against Hezbollah.

--------------------------

Also, Yglesias's claim that all of this goes back to the Palestinian crisis is mistaken.

Israel left Lebanon six years ago in a unilateral withdrawal.

By no stretch of the imagination can Hezbollah be considered a resistance movement.

Yglesias seems to believe that there can be no such thing as unprovoked evil (such as the Hezbollah attack that started this conflict). The facts point in the other direction.