catapult magazine

It is always difficult to discern the ‘pulse’ of the contemporary public milieu, what we value, where we are going, and why.

In that vein, I was reading the introduction to the Barmen Declaration in the PCUSA’s Book of Confessions. In setting the stage for Barth et al.’s denouncement of the Hitler government of their day, the author notes…

"In January 1933, after frustrating years in which no government in Germany was able to solve problems of economic depression and mass unemployment, Adolph Hitler was named chancellor. By playing on people’s fear of communism and Bolshevism, he was able to persuade the Parliament to allow him to rule by edict. As he consolidated his power, Hitler abolished all political rights and democratic processes: police could detain persons in person without a trial, search private dwellings without a warrant, seize property, censor publilcations, tap telephones, and forbid meetings. He soon outlawed all political parties except his own, smashed labor unions, purged universities, replaced the judicial system with his own ’People’s Courts’, initiated a systematic terrorizing of Jews, and obtained the support of church leaders allied with or sympathetic to the German Christians. Most Germans took the union with Christianity, nationalism, and militarism for granted, and patriotic sentiments were equated with Christian truth…"

Thoughts?

As for the ABC argument that this conflict represents a move away from diplomacy and toward ‘real politik’, that seems to be true. However, this region is always swinging back and forth between the two. Diplomacy doesn’t seem to work very well when the parties are not willing to compromise. When diplomacy fails, war happens. When diplomacy succeeds, war doesn’t happen. When diplomacy sorta kinda seems to be doing something, war gets put off for a little while.

That’s a fair point, Dan—and we should probably not put too much into people’s initial reactions to hostility. Perhaps I was taken by ABC’s desire to sell a big, larger-than-life story. I can imagine the frustration, though: the pressure for peace and diplomacy, trying to make concessions (even if modest), and getting attacked for showing "weakness."

Any guess where this is going?

The UN is inept and useless at times but in situations like this, it’s the only solution. My guess is that Israel will be allowed to keep bombing a little while longer, and will probably invade the southern part of Lebanon. Then I’m guessing that the UN will set up a buffer zone there that will be occupied by international troops and that zone has to be large enough that Hezbollah’s new rocket’s can’t reach Haifa. Other than that, I think Lebanon is doomed for now. They’ve spent the last decade rebuilding from their civil war and now I doubt many will feel like staying to rebuild again.

here’s a link to an informative article which takes the position that this conflict is nothing new. Lebanon has seen this before and they’ll see it again. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/20/lebanon/index_np.html

It concludes:

After 30 years and so much blood and suffering, the people of Lebanon are back where they started, listening to Fayrouz while Israeli bombs fall. In the Middle East, it seems, history is a nightmare that keeps repeating itself.