Last week’s commentary sparked a number of discussions with readers. For me, that’s one of the best things about this exercise. (You can, btw, use the comment function on the web page and include more people in the conversation.)

Those discussions were gratifying, because it’s difficult to write about the Israeli-Arab dispute. Each side seems so terribly wounded, so truly wronged – and yet willing to repay those wrongs with actions even more vicious.

The hatred and violence spill over. On Friday, Naveed Afzal Haq killed a woman and wounded five other people at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle in an attack bathed in race hatred and perhaps initiated by the fighting in the Middle East. Earlier that day, a drunken Mel Gibson spewed obscenity-laced epithets at Jews by the side of a California highway.

A celebrity’s inebriated curses can’t be compared to homicide, but the two events illustrate how Jewish Americans might wonder why they’re still targets, even at this late date. Arab Americans wonder the same thing, especially since 2001.

Some folks thought I was too hard on Israel last week, given that Hezbollah started this fight. I don’t think so. Hezbollah is a terrorist group and I don’t expect much from terrorists beyond terror. Syria and Iran, Hezbollah’s sponsors, are autocratic states that have repeatedly demonstrated why such states have bad name. Israel, by contrast, is a democracy and a member of the community of nations; its leaders should meet a civilized standard, which is why Israel’s action have been so dismaying.

If it wasn’t clear a week ago, it should be tragically clear by now that Israel’s iron-fisted policy doesn’t work. Did there really need to be a second slaughter of innocents at Qana? Should
we have been surprised to open the newspaper this morning to see Hezbollah launched more rockets yesterday than on any previous day? Israel has a policy that if punched, it punches back twice as hard. That policy worked from 1948-1973, but not very well since. It’s Ariel Sharon’s policy and should be retired with him. Unfortunately, Israel’s best “friend,” the U.S., has been making the same mistake in Iraq for over three years now. You’d think the Olmert government might have noticed.

Syria erred badly by sponsoring the assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005. The backlash from that killing meant Syrian troops were jeered out of Lebanon. What to do? Syria’s proxy, Hezbollah, launched a few missiles, Israel – as predicted – overreacted and boom, Syria’s a player in Lebanon again.

I don’t think even the Israeli general staff believes the line that bombing Lebanon to shreds will turn the Lebanese people against Hezbollah. Why would it, any more than flying airplanes into the World Trade Center would cause the American people to rise up and demand the
dismantling of U.S. air bases in Saudi Arabia? I can’t imagine most Lebanese were happy about Hezbollah or its activities, but now that Israel has made itself the common enemy of all Lebanese, Hezbollah will probably find more, not less acceptance.

I’m a pro-Israel patriotic American. I’m pro-Israel in that I want to see Israel thrive and I encourage its leaders not to do stupid things. I reject the notion that Americans – American politicians particularly – who support every bellicose idea that comes out of Jerusalem are somehow more pro-Israel than politicians that want the Israelis to behave in a rational manner, just as I reject the idea that pro-war Americans are more patriotic than those who recognize folly when they see it and speak out against it.

© Mark Floegel, 2006