Removing terrorists but not removing terrorism

The recent crisis in the Middle East has enflamed passions and continued the argument over history on the originations of the conflict. However, I have no desire to take this issue to task or recount different versions of a tortured history, and instead will focus on the reaction by Israel towards Lebanon in the context of democracy and international responsibility.

The problem for the West, Israel included, is not the terrorists themselves, but the atmosphere and conditions that create sympathy and participation in extremist behavior. Outside of Israel, there are three democratic states in the Middle East: Lebanon, Palestine, and Turkey. On the ground level, the average Palestinian makes 700 dollars a year, compared to over 30 thousand dollars for the average Israeli, Palestinians and Arabs in general live in autocratic, undemocratic, and economically stagnate societies, and the state of education and civil rights has regressed in the past fifty years. This provides ample support among the populous for movements that not only promise to punish the enemies of the West, but provide services and political outlets against undemocratic regimes that legitimize their actions. The popularity of extremist groups has meant nations, specifically Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, have provided economic support and refuge for known terrorists. The pursuit of terrorism on a strictly military level fails to address the means about which terrorism becomes acceptable and entrenched into society.

The capture of two soldiers by Hezbollah and subsequent reaction by Israel has created a victim of Lebanon. Israeli military has been quick to punish Lebanon for the actions of Hezbollah as it seeks to reassert its ability to defend itself, provoked or preemptively. No matter how incapable Lebanon is of removing extremism on its own, Israel views it as still implicitly culpable for the acts of Hezbollah carried out on its territory. This can be defined as a bad apple spoiling the bunch, or for simplicities sake, collective punishment. While in the short term, this may be seen in Israel or the West as necessary action against a nation harboring terrorists, it is against the long term interests of all parties to undermine one of the only democracies in the Middle East region that apart from Hezbollah, has disavowed itself of militarist elements.

Lebanon is simply a fragile nation and a fledgling democracy. In the past thirty years, it has experienced a tortuous civil war along religious lines, a military occupation by Syria (left following the Cedar Revolution in 2005) and Israel (left in 2000 after 20 years of occupation), and has been an unwitting battleground in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The current crisis is an extension of the past that has proven peace is often a pseudonym for a lull in violence. The acts of collective punishment — the bombing of infrastructure, the debilitation of a nation, the killing of civilians in ‘collateral damage’ — are not only immoral but counter-productive towards stability and sustainable peace. While Israel has the right to defend itself, it must not pursue a defensive policy by compromising the chances for future peace, undermining the Lebanese government, and provoking hostility towards the West and sympathy for extremists by endangering civilians.