Punishment vs. Payback vs. Prevention

Originally Posted: July 24th, 2006

I remember writing this very quickly, and later thinking that there were a couple of points I should have spent more time on and clarified. The first, is that I used the three words very contextually. None of the three, in and of themselves, are bad things. The second, is at the end, where I very vaguely stated that prevention is dangerous. I should have said that prevention CAN be dangerous, not that it absolutely is. I should also have specified that, quite obviously, methods of prevention can vary, from extremely violent to subtly peaceful. My original intention was to make the case that the only honorable way to solve the conflict was by relying on solutions which reject motives of punishment and payback, but embrace prevention. Such a just solution would be/would have been one which both sides could respect, and therefore, be more inclined to adopt and maintain in the future.

Three P-words, and three motives that are each potentially disturbing... Yes - I'm once again talking about the escalating situation in the Middle East. It seems that "Punishment" is the word of the day; reporters talking about the IDF "punishing" Hezbollah for a history of bloody violence and the recent rocket attacks.

Why is this motive disturbing? Self-defense should not be about punishment - and this is my firm belief. Was nothing learned from World War I; from the "punishment" of Germany and its allies? By punishing your enemy you do nothing but breed resentment and strengthen his (or her) resolve to destroy you. Yes, Israel has a right to defend itself, but I maintain that this is entirely the wrong way to go about doing it. You can't destroy an ideology with force; force simply feeds the flames and spirits of those that have lost the most, and have the least left to lose.

Consequently, of course, this notion cuts both ways. What got the Lebanese into this mess in the first place? Hezbollah "punishing" the Israelis. So the cycle of violence seemingly perpetuates itself. Regardless of who you would like to blame for the crisis, or who you would like to support, please discard this idea of punishment - it only contributes to the cycle of violence we continue to witness, now on a daily basis.

Payback - you might be wondering, how is payback different than punishment? Well, payback is the word that no one has used, out loud and in public, to define what's going on. The scary word that no one wants to use because of the cognitive dissonance it creates, reverberating around the skull. How can you define Israel's current actions in the Middle East and payback, and still maintain the moral high ground.

The answer is simply that you cannot. There is no such thing as righteous vengeance. No one wants to say it, but there sure as hell are alot of people thinking it. Payback, though a silent one, is still a motive. The wronged want revenge for their innocents that have been killed, and therefore silently or overtly support the assault on Lebanon - and the rocket attack on Israel. Whether it be "revenge" for innocent lives on either side, or "revenge" for those that were killed in the US embassy bombing years ago, or "revenge" against the collective terrorists, one would either have to be extremely naive, or experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance themselves, to not acknowledge that revenge is clearly a motive in the actions of the major players in this conflict.

Why am I pointing all of this out? Everything I have been hearing over the past few days has been about resolving this crisis, and all of the dialogue usually comes back to this honorable notion of self defense. I'm not sure what I would be hearing if I were in another part of the world, but here in the US the prevailing idea in circulation that the only motive for Israel's actions here are self defense, and that they should therefore be allowed to continue their actions unperturbed. I would agree, if the only motive I could fathom were self defense, but I would have to be unforgivingly naive to believe such a thing.

Why prevention? This, to me, is a far more useful motive than self defense. "Prevention is better than cure." Some smart old guy said that. Israel is trying to prevent their citizens from coming to harm - from being attacked. Other motives may be present, but the motive that the entire international community respects and supports without refutation is this one motive. Hezbollah has all kinds of other motives, all of them condemnable. Regardless of motive, their methodology is absolutely corrupt, so far more condemnable. However, there is one thing that they probably wish to prevent; and that is the destruction of their organization. Hezbollah might be willing to martyr its members, but surely it does not feel similarly about its organization. This is truly useful capital in this conflict; not violence, but prevention. The only way this conflict can be resolved permanently is through diplomacy and creative problem solving; problem solving which shares this motive of prevention for all parties, and does not involve bullying (which I guarantee, will be the first step if a ceasefire is ever reached... Why? Because no one wants to let go of those first 2 P's).

Why is prevention dangerous? Think back to previous wars... Unwillingness to take risks always results in unnecessary casualties - think appeasement in WW II, think Vietnam - even think back to this last Iraq War. Bold, decisive actions of statecraft and diplomacy are needed, and sadly, the world seems to have lost its stomach for making hard decisions.