Who Speaks for Lebanon?

Josh Marshall, the brains behind Talking Points Memo, is one of the best things about the blogoverse. He’s smart, deeply knowledgeable, well-spoken, and just way cool. I often trust him to make up my mind for me.

But, in a recent post about the Israeli attack on Lebanon, he said this:

I think it is correct to see a good part of this as the soundings of groups allied with Syria and Iran, and to a degree acting in concert with him, to strike a new balance of power in the region … With that said, I think Israel is entirely within her right to react strongly to these provocations. [emphasis mine]

He goes on to say that invading Lebanon isn’t a wise thing to do, strategically — which is true. But it’s more than just unwise. It’s reprehensible, nonsensical, indefensible. I just can’t understand the argument that what Israel’s doing is ok, and I doubly can’t understand it coming from Mr Marshall.

I wrote a note to tell him that. Here’s some of what I said:

Lebanon is a sovereign nation, with a functional government that has very little control of the terrorist organization that lives within its borders, and a 3-million strong population of everyday people who have even less to do with them. Israel’s attack on the government and infrastructure of Lebanon isn’t just an overreaction — it’s a complete non-sequitur. It’s unhinged, and it’s almost guaranteed to accomplish the exact opposite of its aims …

I hope I don’t sound unhinged myself here. I lived in Beirut in the 70’s, so I know what it is to be caught in the middle of a larger battle — to be, in every important sense, a battlefield. I certainly don’t mean to trivialize or over-simplify this situation: I know that there are larger forces at play there, historical animosities and political realities expressing themselves through this latest conflict. All I’m saying is that the people of Lebanon are blameless here, and they don’t deserve to have this happen to them. Again.

He wrote back, and very civilly refuted a couple of my more facile arguments, while tactfully failing to mention that, early in my note, I’d essentially accused him of being a fan of murdering civilians. I feel very bad that this is my first correspondence with him. I’m sure he thinks that I’m a crackpot and an asshole, which I probably slightly am, on both counts.

Nevertheless: I don’t think I’m wrong here. Lebanon is triply cursed: they have to contend with Syria’s despotic regime to the North and East, Israels paranoiac jingoism to the South, Hizbullah’s uncompromising extremism within. But no matter what the geopolitical realities are here, the fact remains that Lebanon, and its people, are innocents, and they need someone to stand up for them. Specifically, they need us to stand up for them.

That’s not going to happen, of course. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that Bush has no problem with what Israel’s doing, because, you know, the terrorists. His position seems to be “don’t bomb the fuck out of those innocent civilians too much.” Beirut was supposed to be Bush’s big success in the middle east, the first glimmerings of the promised wave of democracy emanating from the carnage in Iraq. Now he’s calmly standing by and watching all of that getting blown to pieces.

Who speaks for Lebanon?