Trashing Talking Points

It appears that the right-wing blogosphere has come up with a bunch of new talking points to justify their blind support for Israel's invasion of Lebanon.

Talking Point #1: If you're so worried about religious government in Canada (e.g. the fundies squirming inside the CPoC - S. Day for example), why are you supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Talking Point #2: Criticizing Israel is implicitly supporting "them bad guys shooting missiles at Israeli civilians".

The first point is a classic tactic of debate I see from CPoC supporters. Basically, the recipe is this:

Take two unrelated topics, blend.
Accuse your opponent of being logically inconsistent.

As far as I am concerned, the first talking point is trivially refuted with the following:

Stockwell Day is to Hezbollah as a fish is to a bicycle.

The second talking point is similarly flawed. First of all, the basic statement infers that criticizing Israel is, by implication, support for Hezbollah. This is patently false. Israel's invasion is much more than merely going after Hezbollah. From the first day, Israel has been attacking civilian targets in Lebanon - starting with bridges, but moving rapidly into highly populated residential areas. Nobody this side of creation can convince me that a high yield explosive knows the difference between a Hezbollah member and a grandmother out with her grandchildren.

The second point many people fail to understand is that Hezbollah is not just a paramilitary organization. They also encompass a significant political voice within Lebanon, and are very well organized on the ground in Southern Lebanon. This means that if you want to disarm them, it is essential that you engage them politically, not just with military force. It took the UK a long time to come to that conclusion, but they did eventually with the IRA.

Third, is the sheer complexity of the history of the region that Israel occupies defies any kind of "black-and-white" analysis. You cannot say "Israel good, Lebanon bad" and have any credible leg to stand on. Even in the 60 odd years since the modern state of Israel was formed, there has been enough over reaction by parties on both sides of the fence to go around. There is no moral high ground here - not today, and not tomorrow.

No matter how you frame it, there is no moral distinction between Hezbollah lobbing missiles at Haifa and Israel bombing civilian population centers. A Lebanese civilian is no different than an Israeli civilian.

Lastly, as was pointed out on CBC's Sunday Edition program yesterday, Hezbollah's missile capability today is a clue to just how ineffective a "buffer zone" strategy is for the long term security of Israel. Even if Israel creates a 50 or 200 mile buffer zone around its borders, it won't be that long before her enemies have weapons that can target _through_ the buffer zone. Although Israel may squelch Hezbollah's military capability for a while, it's only going to be temporary; worse, for Israel, is the fact that they will have further hardened Lebanese civil opinion against themselves - creating a new ground for groups like Hezbollah to thrive in. War creates shadows, it does not remove them.

My criticisms of Israel's invasion of Lebanon do not stem from any support of Hezbollah per se, but rather from a practical recognition that such tactics are ultimately doomed to fail in the long term. Israel will not be "more secure" after the troops pull back - nor will it be more secure if Israel tries to occupy Lebanon for any period of time.

[Update]
And then we encounter dipwits like Alan Dershowitz who is arguing that there are "degrees" of civilian.
[/Update]