Imagine if, as a result of the Mumbai bombings, the Indian government assumed Pakistan was to blame and, without consulting any of its allies, laid waste to the international airport in Islamabad -- or worse. Or imagine Japan deciding that one more North Korean missile test over its waters or land was too many, before attacking North Korean missile bases.
Would a reasonable person expect Washington to respond to such actions with the line, "We respect the right of [insert name of country] to defend itself"? No: Americans would be expected to deplore acts of revenge and retaliation that are out of all proportion to the provocation because of the long-term instability that this feeds, if not triggering outright war.
But this is not the case with Israel and Lebanon.
Israel's bombing of the international airport in Beirut and residential areas nearby, killing at least 60 innocent people, would in any other part of the world be considered an act of war.
Israel seems to think it bombed the Hezbollah International Airport for the capture of its soldiers. In doing so, the Israelis have thumbed their noses at the safety of not only innocent Lebanese, but also the substantial community of foreigners in Beirut, as well as the safety of airlines and their passengers. Tel Aviv has also vividly nationalized what should have been a response against a specific group.
Indeed, the outrageousness of the attack is compounded by the typically muted reaction of the US and other world powers. Though US President George W. Bush has said that the Israeli attack might weaken the Lebanese government and that he would press for the offensive to stop, the primary message from Washington is simply this: "Israel has the right to defend itself," and that, ipso facto, bombing an international airport constitutes self-defense.
Witness this exchange between a member of the Washington press corps and US State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack on Thursday:
Question: "You've talked a lot about the need for Syria, Iran and other countries to recognize Lebanese sovereignty under 1559 and other UN resolutions. If you're not holding the Lebanese government responsible for these actions [Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers], do you think that the Israeli actions are an affront to Lebanese sovereignty?"
McCormack: "Look, we have made very clear that we, as well as others in the region, want to see this situation resolved. We would hope that it does not escalate. All of that said, we all understand Israel's right to defend itself."
A pathetic non-response to a crucial question.
Israel has been subjected to horrific and despicable attacks by people who have lost all sense of humanity such that they would dismember the bodies of civilians of all faiths. But Israel has also perpetrated unjust treatment against Palestinians for which it is rarely held to account. Perhaps it is only ever a matter of time before this kind of situation so degrades the morality of nations -- even a region -- that the unthinkable becomes the next best option.
It is critical that a powerful mediator be firm but fair to both sides. The US, however, continues to play down Israeli excesses while effectively rebuking all Palestinians -- and now all Lebanese -- for the actions of extremist minorities.
If the US continues to rationalize acts of excessive aggression, perhaps Taiwan's military may take some comfort from the possibility that strikes against major Chinese infrastructure such as the Three Gorges Dam and residential areas can be put on the table. Actually, there is no comfort to be had whatsoever, because Taiwan has much more to lose if such atrocities become feasible.
As long as the US plays down Israel's maverick behavior, the danger of Tehran and Beijing's militant governments aping Tel Aviv grows ever larger.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS