MR Translates Diplomatic Nicities - "Restraint" Means "Israel Not Allowed to Act"
There's this reflex among journalists and diplomats to urge restraint on both sides right after an attack occurs. Which would be reasonable, if it wasn't almost always the case that the first attack is committed by Israel's enemies. So in the actual context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "urging restraint" is in almost every case "urging Israeli restraint". And why would people be "urging Israeli restraint"? Usually because Israel is about to let go of that restraint in response to attack or atrocity. We give you, as a pathetically predictable example, France:
France also expressed concern at the escalation. "I am very concerned about the latest developments on the Israel-Lebanon border," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said in a statement. "I condemn the rocket strikes this (Wednesday) morning on the town of Kyriat Shmona. I also condemn the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and I ask for their immediate and unconditional release," he said. "I call on all parties to show restraint and not engage in a cycle of violence in which civilian populations would be the first victims," he said.
Now, the fundamental problem is that - contrary to the insistence of, well, exactly who you'd expect - the Israeli-Arab conflict is not really a straight-forward cycle of violence. Both sides do engage in violence, yes, but that violence is not ongoing (seriously - if Israel was to launch an ongoing military campaign against the Palestinians, do you really think the war would last very long?) Rather, the violence is episodic - and almost every major turn of the wheel has is initiated as an attack or an escalation by Israel's enemies. The call for restraint does not happen in a vacuum - it happens after Israelis have already been attacked or kidnapped, but before Israel has retaliated. Maybe in a very, very abstract sense it's all very nice and good to always advocate restraint - but when real life diplomats get up on stage, it's way too often with a spliced CNN feed: half on the diplomats abstractly urging restraint from both sides and the other half showing the lights of ambulances and fire trucks in front of where an Israeli cafe used to be.
[Cross-posted at IsraPundit]
France also expressed concern at the escalation. "I am very concerned about the latest developments on the Israel-Lebanon border," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said in a statement. "I condemn the rocket strikes this (Wednesday) morning on the town of Kyriat Shmona. I also condemn the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and I ask for their immediate and unconditional release," he said. "I call on all parties to show restraint and not engage in a cycle of violence in which civilian populations would be the first victims," he said.
Now, the fundamental problem is that - contrary to the insistence of, well, exactly who you'd expect - the Israeli-Arab conflict is not really a straight-forward cycle of violence. Both sides do engage in violence, yes, but that violence is not ongoing (seriously - if Israel was to launch an ongoing military campaign against the Palestinians, do you really think the war would last very long?) Rather, the violence is episodic - and almost every major turn of the wheel has is initiated as an attack or an escalation by Israel's enemies. The call for restraint does not happen in a vacuum - it happens after Israelis have already been attacked or kidnapped, but before Israel has retaliated. Maybe in a very, very abstract sense it's all very nice and good to always advocate restraint - but when real life diplomats get up on stage, it's way too often with a spliced CNN feed: half on the diplomats abstractly urging restraint from both sides and the other half showing the lights of ambulances and fire trucks in front of where an Israeli cafe used to be.
[Cross-posted at IsraPundit]
