Faulty Justifications

A common response to the recent actions of Israel in Lebanon, offered by both the Russian foreign minister and Condoleeza Rice, among others, has been to urge restraint and proportionality. Critics of Israel's actions point to the large number of civilian casualties and Israeli targeting of apparently civilian structures, such as power plants. Defenders of Israel's actions, on the other hand, say that Israel is doing everything it can to minimize civilian casualties, and point out that many apparently civilian structures are used by Hezbollah as bases from which Israel is attacked.

Aside from those who claim that Israel's response is in fact proportional and restrained, there are an increasing number of political writers who are claiming that these criticisms are hypocritical coming from America, Russia and others who have showed little if any restraint in their responses to terrorism. In an article for History News Network, Edward Olshaker takes this position, pointing out Russia's complete destruction of Chechnya -- in response to the separatist movement there that has used terrorist tactics -- and the huge number of civilian casualties that resulted from Russia's failure to even attempt to minimize civilian casualties. Likewise, Olshaker reminds us that "...the Bush Administration was hardly the model of restraint when it reacted to a single day of terrorist attacks by invading two nations at the other end of the planet and overthrowing their governments."

While I certainly agree with Olshaker that those criticisms of Israel are hypocritical, Olshaker claims that this hypocrisy shows Israel's actions to be justified. In doing so, he falls into an all-too-common trap of political rhetoric, and misses the bigger picture entirely. It is hard to engage in any form of political dialogue without someone inevitably invoking faulty logic similar to Olshakers:

Debater 1: Israel uses excessive force in fighting Hamas, and causes too much civilian suffering.
Debater 2: Are you kidding? Hamas intentionally targets civilians!

Since so many people view political issues in very simplistic, black and white terms, serious issues often devolve into this kind of illogical justification-through-comparison. The implication of such statements is that if, for example, a Democrat is found guilty of corruption charges, this fact can be rebutted by pointing out that a Republican was found guilty of corruption charges also. It seems very obvious that such statements are illogical and meaningless -- obviously, two wrongs don't make a right -- yet they are exceedingly common in any sort of political discussion. The possible variations on this fallacy are seemingly infinite, with all manner of brutality, corruption, and dishonesty being supposedly anulled because either "the other guy did it too" or more commonly, "the other guy is worse."

The real lesson to be taken from Olshaker's article is that despite the horrific actions of the U.S. and Russia, Israel should still be held responsible for protecting civilians from harm during their military operations. If anything, Olshaker unintentionally provides an argument not for Israel, but against America and Russia. Rather than demanding less of Israel, people should demand more of America and Russia until they start showing greater restraint and respect for the lives of innocent civilians.