The dictionary of war clichés - part 1

July 17, 2006
Like every important event, the war in Lebanon has already given us a large variety of spin and banal political clichés, from Israel, Lebanon and the international community. A leader usually throws an expression into the air that the ordinary citizen will pick up and relay to every passing television camera.

So here it is - the first big parade of words. Readers can suggest additions by sending them to rosnersdomain@haaretz.co.il.

As long as it takes: Usually means as long as the U.S. administration allows it to happen. In the current crisis the Americans are sensing there's a genuine opportunity to weaken Hezbollah. They will feel obligated to intervene sooner rather than later in one of two cases: Heavier price in human life on the Lebanese side; or growing outcry from important allies in the international community.

The fragile Lebanese democracy: The Arab world is now working on a new definition for democracy. From now on please use "democracies" to denote countries in which there's a weak government chosen by the people, and a strong militia controlled by outside forces. Thus, the democracy is safe on both accounts: You cannot act against the government, as it is a legitimate, democratically-elected leadership, and you cannot ask the government to take responsibility for its territory as it is too weak to act against the militias, and you don't want to risk its collapse.

Hezbollah is a terror organization: And like all terror organizations, it is allowed to get people elected to the parliament, operate freely in a sovereign state and demand negotiations with its leadership.

Resolution 1559: Yet another proof that the UN is capable of calming a troubled area, and that good paperwork is an efficient tool in the war against terror.

Crossing red lines: Something your enemy does. Israel says the abduction of soldiers was the crossing of a red line, and later it was the firing of Katyushas on Israeli cities.

Hezbollah draw their lines in other places. "As long as the enemy pursues its aggression without limits and red lines we will pursue the confrontation without limits and without red lines," its leader said.

We are monitoring the situation: By way of drinking champagne, having fun and talking about a whole lot of other issues.

The right to self-defense: No country or leader will deny the right of every man to self-defense. Of course Israel has the right to self-defense. The question, argued by Israel's critics, is whether the actions in Lebanon can be considered an act of self-defense. But hey, who are we kidding here? We all know the real meaning of this expression, don't we? It means "you can keep bombing until we say otherwise."

Restraint: Bombing Beirut.

It was irresponsible and unacceptable: The sentence with which one describes Hezbollah's behavior before adding: "The Israeli strikes targeted Lebanon's equipment, its roads, its communications, its energy sector and its airport. Why?" Here's a hint: The answer to the question (this one was articulated by France's Jacques Chirac) might be hiding in the first sentence.

Iran and Syria are responsible: U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today that "Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas - are trying to destabilize democratic and moderate forces." And what do we do about it? Bomb Hamas and Hezbollah and denounce Iran and Syria. Does this line of action have any connection to the fact that it's easier to pick a fight with the weaker bully?

We would call for a 'show of moderation' from all parties involved: Another one from Chirac, but you could hear similar statements coming from a variety of international leaders. What they mean is one of two things: We care so much that even taking a side from afar seems too demanding. Or: We know Israel has every right to defend itself, but upsetting Hezbollah is too risky.

Lobby: Is this great timing to publish a long piece asking if the Israel lobby has too much influence? The Post gave it its entire magazine cover, proving, yet again, that I was right when I wrote the following a couple of weeks ago:

"I'm sorry to admit that Walt and Mearsheimer won this round of the battle. They wanted to make a national debate of the issue, and to some extent they succeeded" (Read "The unappreciated love of Walt and Mearsheimer" here).

Guest and Time Saver

My guest this week is probably one of the three most knowledgeable Americans about the Middle East. Martin Indyk will answer my questions, and yours. Just send them to rosnersdomain@haaretz.co.il.

For obvious reasons, both the Iran Time Saver and the Hamas Time Saver are dealing with different aspects of the crisis in Lebanon. Both were updated during the weekend, and contain links to some interesting articles.

Previous blogs on the situation in Lebanon
If there is a millitary...
The don't-mess-with-us-moment