Saturday, July 22, 2006


In discussions about the Middle East, pundits tend to talk about rights, specifically Israel's "right" to defend itself from Hezbollah aggression. Fair enough. But don't innocent Lebanese also have the "right" to stay alive? And how can you decide which "right" is more important?

In this context, talk about "rights" is faux-moralist flimflam. There's arguably a right to retaliate, but there's also the right of innocents not to die in this retaliation.

Foreign policy should be about outcomes, not outraged calls to justice. This point has obviously been lost on anti-Israel forces. But it also applies to Israel, whose right to defend itself will mean very little if the defense begets a wider disaster.


This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Matt, I will read your blog . :O)
I have several blogs. Each is about different things that I wish to express myself on. Whether anyone agrees with me or not really does not matter. It's just my opinion.
Take care and blog on. :O) Everyone's voice should be heard. This is America!

Zeke said...

True enough, but I think you're being a tad too literal. When pundits (the good ones, at least) talk about Israel's right of self-defense, they are making a specific reference to international law, not just a general claim of moral righteousness. That is to say, Israel is justified in attacking a sovereign nation under the UN charter, due to the mitigating circumstance of Hezbollah's prior attacks.

As for the disproportionality of Israel's response, your point still stands.