With the crisis in Lebanon in its twelfth day now, politicians, pundits, and reporters from around the world have had ample opportunity to offer their comments and interpretations on the nature of the conflict between Hizballah and Israel. Given that current global politics continue to be dominated by the mass-mediated narratives of the ‘war on terror,’ it is unsurprising that the developing situations on the ground in Lebanaon, Israel, and Palestine – the physical front of the conflict – have been coupled with a second, rhetorical front, played out on television screens, newspapers, and the Internet. The arsenals of this war are as much composed of rhetoric as they are of rockets.
And the rhetoric is quite complex, if we consider mainstream media discourses. The public has repeatedly been told that the conflict is about Hizballah, about Syrian support, Iranian rockets, the Israeli right to self defence, prisoners, kidnappings, security, and terrorism. What seemed for a while to be an issue of who was retaliating to the actions of whom has transformed into a broad narrative on the actions that must be taken to ensure the future security of Israel, and to permanently cripple Hizballah.
But this rhetoric of complexity is in many ways a smokescreen for what is, at its heart, a worryingly simplistic political process – one that observers of contemporary national security campaigns should find familiar. In essence, repeated references to the subtleties and nuances of this conflict have served to disguise the underlying message being advanced by Israel (with American support), which is “either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists.” It’s a familiar line, and apparently still an effective one. The trick is to combine references to difficult, complex situational characteristics with a polarized, black-and-white image of possible options for action. Attempts to chart a different course are interpreted as support for ‘the other,’ as are any critiques of the actions of the protagonist. By the time a middle ground becomes viable, the damage is done. In the current conflict, that means hundreds killed and a country in ruins.
Some examples to illustrate these rhetorical characteristics:
On the complexity of the current situation:
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: "There are no answers that are easy, nor are there any quick fixes,"
US President Bush: “For many years, Syria has been a primary sponsor of Hezbollah and it has helped provide Hezbollah with shipments of Iranian made weapons. Iran's regime has also repeatedly defied the international community with its ambition for nuclear weapons and aid to terrorist groups. Their actions threaten the entire Middle East and stand in the way of resolving the current crisis and bringing lasting peace to this troubled region.”
On the narrow range of possible solutions (with the preferred solution being allowing Israel to continue its campaign):
Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay: "A ceasefire and a return to the status quo is a victory for Hezbollah,"
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: "A cease-fire would be a false promise if it simply returns us to the status quo, allowing terrorists to launch attacks at the time and terms of their choosing and to threaten innocent people, Arab and Israeli, throughout the region,"
US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton: "The situation is that Israel has lived under the terrorist threat of Hezbollah for years, and these most recent attacks have given it the legitimate right, the same right America would have if we were attacked, to deal with the problem. And that's what they're doing."
These statements do not represent the consensus of commentators on the subject, but I believe that they do illustrate what has become the dominant position of many Western states (particularly the US, but Canada as well – and of course Israel). There are dissenting voices – notably the UN, some elements of the British government, France, Russia, and most human rights organizations), but they have yet to have a real impact on the situation in Lebanon. It is clear that the initial scramble by states to wind up on the ‘right’ side of the ‘with us or against us’ equation has resulted in a diplomatic green light for the continuation of hostilities in the region.
And so we are encouraged to understand the crisis in Lebanon as one that is incredibly complex and ‘unfortunate,’ but ultimately best resolved by simply supporting Israel’s campaign, on the grounds that they claim ‘initial victim status.’ It’s so complex that calls for alternative solutions are instantly dismissed, and a ceasefire is considered to be a terrorist victory; the only solution is to pick sides and then sit back and watch (while evacuating one’s own countrymen, of course).
The unwillingness of Western leaders to take a more nuanced stance on this crisis, and the willingness to allow support for Israel to become support for all Israeli actions (as though any dissent might appear to be a wholesale anti-Israeli position) has allowed the situation to escalate unchecked. The rhetorical dimension of the conflict is such that departures from the dominant (but maddeningly over-simplistic) ‘Israel was transgressed, so Israel’s response must necessarily be justified self defence’ are interpreted as support for Hizballah. By the time that saner minds prevail (if such a thing is possible) the death toll will no doubt have climbed dramatically.
If it wasn’t already clear that polarized politics and rhetorical excuses for campaigns that will necessarily result in mass civilian casualties are things to be avoided, it should be evident now. It is a blow to the cause of social justice that we have arrived at a situation where the leaders of democratic nations support the bombardment of noncombatants as a legitimate practice, whatever the stated underlying cause or grievance. What is needed is a strong alternative discourse that supplants the dominant rhetoric with one that pays closer attention to the cause of human rights. Complex problems – and there can be no doubt that the current dynamics in the Middle East are indicative of a complex set of problems – ought not to result in simplistic ‘with us or against us’ solutions, and discourses that advance such an understanding should immediately raise alarm bells.
It would be nice if we could look to a Canadian government that appreciated the dangers of polarized politics and recognized that – occasionally – doing the right thing does not involve being 100% with ‘us’ or 100% with ‘them.’
- Mike
No comments:
Post a Comment