This argument about proportionality is really starting to piss me off (and totally interesting article, CM, I'm not directing this at you)- yeah, yeah, whatever, let everyone have their say and feel like they've accomplished something, but it's just fucking dumb. (Oh, and the number that really stands out to me, I might interject, is that one seventh of Lebanon's population, roughly, has been forced to leave their homes and flee the bombing as much as they are able- comprefuckinghend that: New Orleans times a bunch, no?)

But returning to the question at hand: What should Israel do, kill one Lebanese, preferrably militant Hezbollah constituent, for every Israeli death? Or maybe a 5:1 ratio is better to convey seriousness of intent. And if we want to talk about kidnapping soldiers, well, unless we want to debate legitimate use of force, the fact of the matter is that Israel has been hauling off Palestinians in droves for years (under pretense of suspicion, even- whereas when you get a soldier in uniform, you know that you, like, definitely got a soldier, not a civilian), so, no matter what, Arab/muslim casualties always have and always will continue to exceed Israeli casualties, unless Tehran builds a bomb (nuclear). NOW we're talking about proportionality. The thing that this stupid fucking argument about proportionality does is completely diverts attention from the actual fucking situation. Within the scope of Israel's plans, outlook, etc., what they're doing right now makes perfect fucking sense, proportionality is a technicality concerning public opinion, and while I ABSOLUTELY don't agree with their actions, I also think that if one doesn't understand how theirs is a rationally derived conclusion concerning how to deal with the situation, then I think one is drawing conclusions based on an oversimplification of the situation.

But I ABSOLUTELY don't agree with their actions, though I may as well just curl and dream my opinions, 'cause they're not even on the map. First, civilian deaths are just straight up fucking wrong. I mean, war is the worst, but civilian casualties are the real worst, so fuck all these assholes on all sides. But more to the point: If the issue is Israeli security in the north and the question of Hezbollah, well the UN has aptly demonstrated its absolute inability to perform its function beyond issuing press releases- well I exaggerate, but clearly when it comes to militant quasi-states, the UN does not have an answer. So unless you think Hezbollah should fight on until they "wipe Israel off the map" or somesuch, well the bottom line is as long as Hezbollah can harrass Israel it will- what then? So perhaps you think it's just Israel's lot, in exchange for its historical overriding of some nearly irresolvable moral ambiguities, that it'll just have to deal with some shelling from the north. Perhaps meteorologists could include it in their daily report. Otherwise what besides this current action would stop Hezbollah from attacking? Serious question.

I personally happen to be of the school that considers that for various reasons the Palestinians have never gotten a fair deal, even when they were "finally being given a fair deal" (um, well, '48 is a harder question for me, we're going from '67 here), the occupation of the West Bank is 100% wrong and needs to end, the Golan is also an occupation/annexation disguised as a security issue, etc... So I could ramble on, but I won't: for me the interesting moment came when Hamas came to power. The real question for me is, if, instead of squashing Hamas, the international community had tried to negotiate the situation a little more delicately, tried to work with it, whatever, if Hamas were being allowed to grow (albeit cautiously) into a legitimate governing body, so that we could actually be really talking about a real Palestinian state, then Hamas militants (I think) wouldn't have been able to stage their kidnapping, and in turn Hezbollah would not have been in a position to stage their attack. We'd actually be talking about a whole new, actually unprecedented, brave, nuanced situation, rather than weighing immeasurable moral quantities for lack of a better answer.

I'm sorry, that was a little off topic but I couldn't help it, really- the simple answer is, CM, I agree with you.

Having read Jesse's comments before reading the article, I was a little surprised that Ellenberg had been so political -- he's usually very much not. And he's still not. I really like his pieces.

I fully admit that I've been lurking in the bushes waiting for CM to post something that would trigger my spiel. The spiel's a little bit like TV static in my brain.