In an act that anywhere else on earth would be considered an act of war, Israel today violated Lebanon’s airspace with two jet fighters. This belligerent event of course neither deserved nor received any notice elsewhere because it is so routine. In the global crusa…sorry…war to teach Muslims a lesson, this is the type of trivial event no serious professional analyst of global affairs would bother mentioning.
Except…isn’t there a principle here? If one country is allowed endlessly to violate international law with impunity, does that not establish a dangerous precedent? What if a less “advanced” country…say, Iran…were to follow this precedent? What if an IRGC general, perhaps one not well versed in the rules of global affairs, were to argue that the precedent of Israeli aerial violations of Lebanese territory justified Iranian placement of IEDs in Iraq where American military vehicles were expected to pass?
Yes, Israel owns victimhood. No, we, the rest of mankind, will never, ever be able to compensate Israelis for the harm done to their ancestors. Nevertheless, will Israel be grateful and wise in its use of its privileges if allowed to do what is permitted to no other nation? Will it use its privileges only when necessary, apologize for doing so, and go out of its way to offer to relinquish its privileges at the earliest possible moment?
Or might Israel actually cause harm to itself by too frequent indulgence? How much unprovoked violence can a state indulge in without becoming addicted? What are the impacts on a democratic society of becoming addicted to violence as the means of choice for resolving international disputes? Does it ever affect how society resolves domestic disputes?
I don’t even enjoy the odd local police helicopter buzzing over my rooftop. If that aircraft were a loaded jet fighter/bomber sent by an enemy state that had repeatedly invaded my country and destroyed my home town, I wonder, how would I feel?