When both sides are wrong
The variations in the degree of sympathy for the Lebanese who are getting bombed are very interesting.
Darius Nakhoonwala
This column is late partly because I was waiting to see how major newspapers commented on the undeclared war on Lebanon by Israel. The variations in the degree of sympathy for the Lebanese who are getting bombed are very interesting.
Some said Israel was being brutal in its response. Others said it was the Hezbollah that was responsible. One or two took the realpolitik line, that is, one of cynicism. And the Pioneer said any action aimed at attacking Islamic terrorism was by definition good. But most importantly, all appeared confused, which is fine given how tangled the situation in the region is.
The Hindu called the Israeli action "grotesquely disproportionate" and said it was futile to expect the US to do anything to stop the carnage. Bit it also added that "the militant outfit does deserve to be condemned for causing the deaths of over 15 Israeli civilians through its resort to indiscriminate violence…The real purpose of the bombardment appears to be the systematic degradation of the Hizbollah`s military capabilities." Implicit in this was an endorsement of the objective but not of the means. The paper did, however, point out that this approach would not succeed because Hizbollah, the militia that Israel is seeking to destroy, was "an integral part of the social fabric in southern Lebanon . It provides essential services to the villages in this area populated mainly by Shias, the community from which its cadres are drawn. A campaign directed at the Hizbollah was always likely to turn into an assault on Lebanon`s Shias… Given the plight of the civilians on both sides, a humanitarian intervention has become absolutely imperative."
The Telegraph seemed to take off from this and said "the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has become a major military and humanitarian crisis… Israel`s retaliation to Hezbollah`s violation of its sovereignty can only result in massive civilian casualties… very few... would say that the aggressiveness of Israel`s attack was not disproportionate."
The Indian Express said while it was easy to criticise Israel, "there must also be recognition that the country has the misfortune of dealing with parties that seem to have no interest in peaceful solutions. Which state would want interlocutors such as Hamas and Hezbollah when trying to look for solutions to a problem that carries the terrible burden of bloody history?" It forgot to mention, however, who was more responsible for all this. But it did make a valid point in saying "the most terrible tragedy of the Middle East today is the dreadful life choices for ordinary Palestinians." But no cares for them, and that is the hard truth.
The Business Standard, as is its wont, pointed to history and said "in medieval times it was the practice of impecunious and unscrupulous European monarchs to organise the punishment of entire Jewish communities for the actions of one or two Jewish moneylenders who had the cheek to ask for repayments of their loans from the monarch." It then asked "is it not an irony, then, that although the Israelis refuse to acknowledge it, this is exactly what their government is doing in Lebanon by holding all Lebanese responsible for the actions of a Shia militant group, the Hezbollah?"
It went on with the history lesson. "When a European monarch slaughtered innocent Jews, the rest would not protest. Some would also abet. The international response today has had interesting variations: the Europeans have criticised Israel for the use of excessive force, the US thinks the Arabs have been irresponsible and should behave themselves, and Israel has presented itself as merely reacting to unprovoked aggravations. The Arab governments in the region have been careful in their statements, while it is Iraq`s prime minister who has spoken out against Israel."
Subscribe To The Newsletter