ON WEDNESDAY, President Bush vetoed a bill that would have allowed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, claiming that "murder" is wrong and that the lives of embryos should not be sacrificed for a chance to develop life-saving cures for a number of deadly diseases. The merits of that bill aside, the logic behind the veto contrasts sharply with Bush's refusal to call for a cease-fire between Lebanon and Hezbollah -- effectively sacrificing Lebanese lives for Israeli lives. The plan for ultimate peace communicated through Condoleezza Rice is absolutely right, but it will be meaningless if the violence between Hezbollah and Israel is allowed to continue.
By now, it is abundantly clear that military action alone cannot eliminate a terrorist threat. Israel should have learned this in the years it has spent fighting terrorists in its own borders. Each further reprisal only leads to more violence. In fact, Israel attempted to remove the threat from Hezbollah when it invaded Lebanon in 1996. If insanity can be defined as doing the same thing and expecting different results, we can add Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to the long list of insane Middle Eastern leaders.
The solution to the problem must be of a diplomatic nature. Surprisingly, the Bush administration has finally come to this realization. Rice has said that her goal on her diplomatic mission is to create a framework for lasting peace in the Middle East. This framework, she says, could include "some kind of international assistance" in order to "push forward" Lebanese sovereignty. This assistance, if used to give the Lebanese military the enforcement power it needs to stand up to Hezbollah, should have been provided earlier. If Bush's goal was to spread democracy in the Middle East, it is unfathomable why his administration has not already given sufficient aid for this fragile young democracy to prove his plan was workable. It is rare that I find myself agreeing with the President on foreign policy issues, but in this case his long-term plan, as communicated by Rice, is exactly the proper course of action.
His refusal to join international calls for a cease-fire and his direct material support of the Israeli assault on Lebanon are far less enlightened policies which will ultimately hurt the long-term peace process. Military actions may damage Hezbollah's forces temporarily, but the group has demonstrated that they are capable of gathering supplies, especially with the support of Syria, whose army only left Lebanon one year ago. Further, the mostly aerial assault that Israel has launched will be largely ineffectual at destroying the organization's munitions. It can already be seen that the fighting has only served to embolden Hezbollah.
What will be destroyed by Israel's actions is Lebanon's infrastructure and the lives of its civilian population. The damage done to the peace process will be three-fold. Firstly, Hezbollah will be able to capitalize on the deaths of innocents as powerful anti-Israel propaganda. Like the abuses perpetrated by American soldiers in Iraq, the murder of Lebanese civilians by the Israeli military, intentional or not, will encourage more Lebanese to seek revenge, and the cycle of violence will continue.
Second, if peace is established and Lebanon is given the power to police its own territory effectively, the damage done to roads and communications equipment will work to the terrorists' advantage, making it far easier for the terrorists to become the de facto rulers of the country, as they have in Afghanistan -- another country whose nascent government is unable to enforce its policies. Chaos will work to Hezbollah's advantage.
Thirdly, the economic damage to the country could be catastrophic. Lebanon has had consistent economic growth since the end of its civil war in 1991, except for the period in 1996 when Israel invaded. The extensive damage to capital and infrastructure done by an extended invasion will increase the suffering of the people of Lebanon, providing yet another propaganda victory for Hezbollah. The terrorists will be able to take advantage of a greater number of desperate Lebanese who will see Israel as the source of their problems and who will be willing to take radical actions against it.
Bush's argument for supporting Israel's actions is that a ceasefire without real change is meaningless. He is right, but if real change is his true goal, he must encourage Israel to support the Lebanese government in disarming Hezbollah rather than continuing their destructive and counterproductive campaign.
The real reason for Bush's hesitancy in condemning Israel's violence is clear. Like all American politicians, he must support Israel in order to appease the Jewish and conservative Christian voters that support him. Many of these voters would see criticism of Israel's actions as a violation of God's will. This viewpoint has no basis. A quick glance through Jewish scripture will reveal a pattern in which Israel makes a mistake and a prophet reprimands it. Any parent will tell you that loving something does not mean letting it do whatever it pleases. It may seem condescending, but hatred and politics have created a situation in which Israel is pursuing policies that are not in its best interest.
Ultimately, there is a deep hypocrisy in Bush's logic: Israel has a right to defend itself, but Lebanon does not. His administration is right to call for reforms that will create lasting peace. He is wrong to support violence that will make this goal even more difficult.
Daniel Colbert is a Cavalier Daily Opinion columnist. He can be reached at dcolbert@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
