In the Middle East last week, no two scenes could have highlighted more vividly the clash of cultures in the Arab-Israeli dispute than the contrasting events in Lebanon and in Israel. In Beirut, there were shouts of acclamation, brass bands, and kisses on the cheek for the returning heroes—along with crowing signs in Arabic that read “humiliation” across a photograph of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In Israel, the return of the bodies of two Israeli soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, was followed by the mournful sounds of funerals conducted with quiet dignity in Nahariya and Haifa for the two men. The exchange of two dead soldiers for five living prisoners and 199 dead Lebanese and Palestinian fighters was the fruit of some eighteen months of painful negotiation between Israel and Hezbollah that followed the 33-day “July War” in 2006 between Israel and Hezbollah.
In fact, it was the kidnapping of Goldwasser and Regev that started the war in the first place. The two men were snatched by Hezbollah gunmen after anti-tank missiles were fired at two armored Humvees patrolling northern Israel. Three Israeli soldiers were killed in the attack, three injured, and Goldwasser and Regev, presumed injured as well, were captured and taken back to Lebanon.
The leader of the Lebanese Shiite Islamist group Hezbollah, Hasan Nasrallah, had made it plain that the kidnapping of the soldiers was intended to obtain live bargaining chips for the freeing of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners held in Israel. Of these, the most notorious was Samir Kuntar, a PLO operative who, only 16, had taken part in a raid on the northern Israeli seaside town of Nahariya back in 1979. The raid was foiled and Kuntar captured, but not before he killed an Israeli policeman and bludgeoned a four-year-old girl to death by smashing her head against a rock with a rifle butt. The toddler’s mother had inadvertently suffocated a two-year-old while hiding in a crawl space of the house as Kuntar and others searched for her.
The Israeli military suspected that the two soldiers had died after their being snatched, either from wounds or execution-style. But Hezbollah toyed cruelly with their Israeli families by not revealing whether they were dead of alive until their coffins were exchanged for Kuntar and four other released prisoners at the border just a few days ago.
The exchange provoked bitter debate in Israel. It has always been a moral imperative of Judaism—and indeed the Israeli Defense Forces—to recover their wounded and dead from the nation’s battlefields. On the other hand, Israeli governments have traditionally refused to bargain with organizations they deem to be terrorist, like Hezbollah, over the return of captured, missing, or dead military personnel. In the Goldwasser and Regev exchange, the government clearly caved in to an earnest campaign by many supporters of the kidnapped soldiers’ families in what the left-of-center newspaper Ha’aretz, in an editorial, described as “a disturbing triumph of sentiment over sense and strategy.” A columnist in the same newspaper summed up the situation drily. “Here,” he wrote, “are the result of Israel’s war against Hezbollah so far. Hezbollah is bringing home a living murderer, and Israel is bringing home two dead soldiers—over whose capture it sacrificed 160 other solders and civilians.”
The disproportionality of the exchange and the grotesque triumphalism of Hezbollah in welcoming Kuntar and others home offended many Israelis. The Jerusalem Post, Israel’s leading English-language daily paper, editorialized: “Hezbollah’s greatest lost, perhaps, has been its standing in the eyes of principled people everywhere, who now can see the difference between a political culture that valorizes brutality and celebrates a killers as its natural conscience, and one that manages a quiet dignity even in the most trying of times.”
But it was not just the Israeli press that felt this way. London’s leading Arabic-language paper A-Sharq al-Awsat thought that it was “shameful to see members of the government in Beirut join the celebrations of Hezbollah.” “The deal,” the paper added, “cost Hezbollah more than seven billion dollars, more than 1,200 dead, and 4,500 wounded Lebanese civilians.”
In the short run, of course, it is indeed Hezbollah’s triumph, for the return of Kuntar was why Nasrallah was willing to risk all-out war with Israel two years ago. (Never mind that Nasrallah candidly admitted he hadn’t anticipated the forcefulness of the Israeli reaction against Lebanon). The biggest loser in the transaction, however, has to be not Israel, but Lebanon, and any prospect that it might remain an independent state. In recent negotiations with Hezbollah over power sharing in the government, the pro-Western Prime Minister Fouad Seniora all but handed over veto-power in government policy-making to Hezbollah, which of course, takes almost all of its cues from politicians in Syria and Iran. Lebanon, a once courageous, independent, and powerfully Christian state, to all intents and purposes, is now under the control of Islamists.
The other shoe to drop is the price Hamas will now demand for the freedom of an Israeli soldier it also kidnapped two years ago inside southern Israel, Corporal Gilad Shalit. As Palestinians in Gaza celebrated the “victory” of Hezbollah in getting Kuntar out of an Israeli prison, it seemed probable that Hamas would raise the price it would ask of Israel for the return of the Israel soldier it holds. Essentially, Palestinian and Arab Islamist groups know that they cannot destroy Israel, but they can cause its citizens much anguish by kidnapping them and holding them for the highest price possible. The small print in all future deals is that the “heroes” they force Israel to release may turn out to be child-murderers. It is the culture of civilized life versus the culture of Al Capone thuggery.
Dr. Aikman, a Senior Fellow of the Trinity Forum, was for many years senior correspondent for Time.
Columns, David Aikman, Provocations, Global Culture, War and Peace, Fri 18 Jul 2008
In the long run, the public interest depends on private virtue.
James Q. Wilson
New Approach to Muslim States?
Electoral Politics: The Possibility of a ‘Perfect Storm’
Conservatism and Individualism
Religion, Elections, and Foreign Affairs
The Rise of Global Civil Society: Building Communities and Nations from the Bottom Up by Don Eberly.
A sweeping and hopeful overview of the extraordinary new forces that are prying open closed societies and cultivating democratic norms across the globe.
Give Me Liberty and Give Me Death: ‘I still cursed God, as we all do when we get bad news and pain. Not even the most faith-impaired among us shouts, “Damn quantum mechanics!” “Damn organic chemistry!” “Damn chaos and coincidence!”’ (P J O’Rourke, Search Magazine • 2008 09 30)
Give Me That Old-Time Religion: ‘This week revealed that when real money is on the line, even the left starts screaming for old-fashioned standards. Thus rose a shout for regulatory “oversight” of markets, and they don’t mean some vague, Googlie “don’t be evil.” They want tough, punishing rules. This won’t wash. You can’t claim, as holier-than-thou politics is now, that sending an army of regulatory storm-troopers into Wall Street will ensure integrity in mere bankers who themselves come from a broader, anything-goes culture.’ (Daniel Henninger, The Wall Street Journal • 2008 09 29)
The Real Digital Revolution: Social networking is changing the marketing landscape: “Brand advertising can’t stretch the truth anymore or try and gild the lily. Because if it does, we’re going to find out about it, find out that you’ve been lying to us all along about extras that don’t work and specials that aren’t special. And our reaction is not going to be pretty.” (Alan Wolk, AdWeek; h/t: Ryan Moede • 2008 08 27)
Après Lewis: ‘As it turns out, Tim Keller’s “The Reason for God” (2008), the book recommended by my friend, is the best of the “Mere Christianity” wannabes. Mr. Keller argues that the usual objections to Christianity—that it is a straitjacket, that there cannot be just one true religion—are themselves the product of a particular (secular Western) point of view. He then builds an affirmative case for Christianity, suggesting that the Big Bang and our appreciation of beauty are clues pointing to God and that Christ’s resurrection was so unlikely both to Greeks and Romans (who viewed the material world as weak and corrupt) and to Jews (who expected any resurrection to come at the end of time) that it cannot be dismissed as the clever marketing strategy of a new religion. If this sounds a little like N.T. Wright, it isn’t accidental: Mr. Keller draws liberally from him, as well as Lewis, Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga (a professor at Notre Dame) and others. “The Reason for God” is as sensible and winsome as one would expect from the pastor of a latticework of churches that draw more than 5,000 attendees in New York City every Sunday, most of them young, single, urban professionals. But it too is no “Mere Christianity.” It does not have the original arguments or the magical prose of Lewis’s classic.’ (David Skeel, Wall Street Journal • 2008 08 15)
• Alexander Solzhenitsyn: the line within (2008 08 11)
• Atheism and Evil (2008 07 29)
• Christopher Nolan’s Achievement: The Dark Knight (2008 07 22)
• Unplanned Parenthood (2008 07 21)
• What makes a supervillain? (2008 07 19)
Politics, Morality, and Civility by Václav Havel, Foreword by Alonzo L. McDonald.
An essay by Czech playwright and former President Václav Havel.
You are viewing a mobilized version of this site...
View original page here