The Language of War

The Bush administration's portrayal of the U.S stance regarding Israel's two-front offensive against Hezbollah and Hamas is deceptively passive. When Bush said on Thursday that "Israel has the right to defend herself," it would seem that his administration desires to project an image of having washed its hands clean of the Israeli attacks in Lebanon and in Gaza. That is, Israel has the right to "defend herself" against "terrorists" -an innocent victim faced with a male aggressor, no doubt- just as the U.S. exercized its right to defend itself with preemptive strikes against "terrorists" in Iraq. Call it an enabling justification of the Israeli government's military blockade of Lebanon by air, by sea, and now, after the continued bombing of major highways leading to Syria, by ground. Within its own structure of reason, of logic, the rhetoric of war does indeed have a justification, however unjustified its acts of violence may be.

But when the Security Council of the United Nations voted to condemn Israel's use of disproportionate force, U.S. ambassador John Bolton exercized the power of veto, striking down the UN resolution proposed by Qatar to condemn Israel's offense against civilian targets in Lebanon and Gaza. The U.S. attempt to paralize international intervention in the escalating violence in the Middle East is no longer a passive matter, but a dangerously active policy to prevent mediation in the conflict.

Later, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow commented, "[the President] believes the Israelis [...] should limit as much as possible so-called collateral damage, not only to facilities but also to human lives," thereby revealing the first and only sense of concern aired so far by the Bush administration. Apparently, Israel may attack all "she" wants, as long as the innocent dead and structural damage remain minimal. However, with only three days of heavy bombing, not to mention a significant death toll, I believe the "situation" has already passed this threshold of damage.

I suppose, in light of the U.S. justification for Israel's State-sponsored violence, that the Bush administration might find the Israeli army is taking a humanitarian approach to bombing civilian targets. After all, Israeli war planes did drop leaflets over the southern suburbs of Beirut, warning residents to evacuate the area before their homes would be bombed a few hours later. These targets, aside from homes, have included power sources, water supplies, gas stations, roads, and of course the Beirut International Airport. Clearly an indication of Israel's concern to make the offense against Hezbollah a "clean" operation.

With this humanitarian approach to war in mind, it seems secondary, then, that Bush is alone among world leaders (with the exception of the Prime Minister of Canada), who believe the conflict should be mediated urgently and with great caution. Two days ago, Spanish President Zapatero said in an interview with Punto Radio, "From my point of view, Israel is mistaken. One thing is legitimate defense, and another is to launch a counteroffensive of generalized attack against Lebanon, and in Gaza, that will surely bring nothing more than an intensification of violence." France, Germany, China, and an overwhelming majority of the United Nations, are but a few world leaders who agree with Zapatero.

Even the Secretary of State in the Vatican, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, expressed the concern of Pope Benedicto XVI. "In particular, the Holy Seat deeply laments the attack against Lebanon, a free and sovereign country, and reiterates its close ties with its people who have already suffered a lot to defend their independence," said Sodano on Vatican Radio. And when the Vatican shows deeper concern -though no more active or participatory- than the White House, I believe we do have a problem.

The events of the past few days have lead undoubtedly to an intensification of violence, of threats from all sides. "The Islamic resistance warns against targeting civilians and the infrastructure," a statement read on Hezbollah TV advised. "It (resistance) specifically announces that it will quickly shell the city of Haifa and nearby areas if the southern suburbs and the city of Beirut are subjected to any direct Israeli aggression." And in comments made by Israeli Minister of Interior, Ronnie Bar-On stated, "If the Lebanese government fails to take control over the border and put a stop to Hizbullah's shooting, [if] it fails in restoring calm in Southern Lebanon, we'll bring the Wild West to the area," a Wild West inhabited by unruly savages and cowboys who will establish order by lawless means. Call it a telling association between the already-despised American support for Israel -a cowboy president and an allied State making war on barbaric "injuns" and terrorists- and an abuse of "preemptive strikes" that the U.S. first cited as its justification for the post-9/11 world "war on terror".

Meanwhile, Israeli Minister of Defense, Amir Peretz, openly accused Syria and Iran of being behind the Hezbollah retalliation against Israeli strikes on Thursday, calling these two countries "a new axis of evil," a grave reminder for the dangers of the Bush administration's language in times of war. The same day, Iranian Prime Minister Ahmadinejad phoned Syrian President Bashar Assad and told the Syrian leader that if Israel widens its military operation to target Syria, "this will be considered like attacking the whole Islamic world and this regime will receive a very fierce response."

I leave you with one last remark, an analysis that speaks to the cultural (i.e., socio-political) tensions for the escalation of the conflict, which go well beyond a discussion of rhetoric, what the language of diplomats and politicians, generals and prime ministers tend to misunderstand in the potential future impact of the situation at hand. Juan Cole, president of the Global Americana Institute and professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan, offers his perception of Israel's offense in Lebanon and Gaza:

Americans have to understand that when Israel goes wild and bombs a civilian airport and civilian neighborhoods in Beirut, a lot of the world's Catholics (Lebanon is partially a Catholic country) and its 1.4 billion Muslims blame the United States for it. Israel is given billions every year by the United States, including sophisticated weaponry that is now being trained on the slums of south Beirut. It should also be remembered that Bin Laden said, at least, that he started thinking about hitting New York when he saw that 1982 Israeli destruction of the skyscrapers or "towers" of Lebanon. How many future Bin Ladens are watching with horror and rage and feelings of revenge as Israel drops bombs on civilian tenement buildings? When will this blow back on Americans? (I mean blow back in other ways than an already painful further spike in petroleum prices).