So it's been a few weeks...

...Since I last posted here. I've needed some decompression time and I'm definitely feeling better than i was a few weeks ago. Hell, i leave for chciago in two weeks and I am simulateously excited and terrified. It's an intersting place to be. But I am looking forward to it, and excitement is outweighing trepidation more and more each day. I've decided to post one of my last papers from UMASS bsoton below to make up for the alck of posts over the alst few weeks. It's a fairly lenghthy diatribe that talks about my shifting political views over the alst two years and how it is anthropology gave me the tools to self examine my own personal take on the world. Might bore you to tears, might shed some insight, fell free to comment...

----

Why I am not a Libertarian (anymore)

While many of the faculty in the anthropology department are aware of my time as a journalist and my co-founding of the alternative weekly newspaper Boston's Weekly Dig, few here at UMass are aware of my fairly extensive activist work in Boston over the last 15 years or so. And almost no one is aware of my long and close involvement with the Libertarian Party during my 20s. While the Libertarian party is usually cast as a fairly conservative group, I was a rarity among their members, that is, a "liberal" Libertarian. I saw within their ideology much worth investigating, but, simultaneously, I was always in conflict with some of their dogmatic beliefs about small government and their desire to reduce government to almost nothing – instead relying on charity and on the smallest and most local of taxes to fund a tiny government. Their desire to privatize education, eliminate the EPA, dissolve social welfare programs and rely solely on private and corporate donations to assist the economically disadvantaged didn't always sit well with me, but at the same time, I understood that the EPA often failed in its job to prevent pollution, that property taxes were a less than fair way to fund education, and the US welfare system had not had the same success in reducing poverty in the same way that European programs had.
Libertarians also stood up for issues of individual rights that were of paramount importance to me. They were the only official party in Massachusetts to include drug law reform (and marijuana legalization) in their platform, they unquestionably supported a woman's right to choose, they insisted upon full separation of church and state, championed free speech and, they opposed rent control.
Now, opposing rent control might seem like a particularly conservative position. But as a journalist, the more research I did on rent control the more I discovered a policy that had primarily failed in its attempt to curb the concentration of capital in the hands of a few and reduce rents for the poor. Instead, the vast majority of my research showed me that rent control had become a fairly corrupt policy, with middle class folks benefiting from it as often if not more often than the poor, and that small home owners were often the ones most hurt by its policies because it made it difficult for them to eek out a profit on their property with low rents after paying taxes, high interests rates and basic upkeep. My research showed that small homeowners, more often than not, could not afford to improve their properties or maintain them as well as they might have without rent control. Furthermore because rent control made small home ownership less than attractive, only a handful of two and three family homes were built in Boston during its existence (since the end of rent control approximately a decade ago, considerably more one, two and three family homes have been built in Boston, particularly in neighborhoods like Jamaica Plain, than during the approximately 25 years rent control was in effect. An MIT study of the last decade showed that across the board from affluent to modest income neighborhoods investment in neighborhood housing has increased by 20%). Large property owners like those that owned multi-unit buildings in Allston and the Fenway (often called “student ghettos” by those who dwell there because the high-turnover by non-permanent residents who are not nearly demanding or community oriented as long-term family residents, allow for poor maintenance of these units and result in a less than stellar housing stock), were primarily the landlords best capable of making a profit through volume during the years of rent control. Rent Control, a policy meant to help the poor and prevent property concentration had accomplished quite the opposite. It was a boon to folks who actually could afford to pay more rent but managed to network and find a cheap apartment and then never moved out; it inhibited small home ownership, and encouraged property concentration in the hands of developers and other wealthy landlords most capable of making a profit. Yes, it kept rents low, but it was not exclusively or specifically people in need who benefited from the low rents, nor did it encourage home ownership by working class families, warping to some degree the demographics of residential Boston.
I discuss rent control in detail because it will provide some foundation in understanding why it was that I was initially attracted to Libertarian philosophy, but also how it is that anthropological training has let me lift the veil on the short-sightedness of such an ideology and situate it in a historical and global context. While the Libertarians may have been right that rent control had been a failure in urban areas in Massachusetts, their belief that an unfettered laissez fare economy was the best solution was equally flawed. But I did not see this at the time. I wasn't entirely won over by the Libertarian solution of unfettered competition for capital, but as a small businessman and a strong believer in individual rights, I was intrigued and saw their ideas as superior than Republicanism or a Democratic party that was centering itself more and more each day. Libertarianism, as radical as its small government ideas were, was at least arguing for a change in systems that seemed to be stagnating at best, and at worst, failing the very working people funding it.
However, I never quite agreed that education, healthcare and the environment should be left to charity and privatization. A part of me felt that there were certain aspects of society that should not and probably could not be measured by their propensity to return a profit. Their importance was of a completely different kind. Money never has been particularly important to me personally and Libertarian philosophy wholly revolves around an unfettered capitalist system being the status quo.
If you had asked me 10 years ago at age 26 what I thought of capitalism, I would have answered that I thought it was a pretty good idea. Any flaws that might have been suggested to me by friends (who were often surprised that an otherwise leftist from the punk rock scene embraced capitalism), I would chalk up to “individual action.” "Capitalism," I once explained, "Simply allows one to charge as much as he can get for a product, it doesn't insist upon it. It allows a proprietor to set a wage as low as he can, but doesn’t insist upon it or require a worker to take the wage.” I felt the flaw was in individuals and not the system. “Some individuals are greedy and it is their lack of ethics that results in disparity, not an inherent aspect of Capitalism." Adam Smith would have been proud.
As someone who had been working-class himself, a hard-worker, a small businessman, and politically active as well, I felt that the most basic way one could improve his or her social and economic position was through self-reliance, pulling one up by their own bootstraps so to speak. But I wasn’t asking an important question, a question that my study of anthropology would lead me to recognize as perhaps the most important question regarding social conflict, a question that I plan to pursue through the study of archaeology for many years to come; I realized that you can’t pull yourself up by the boot straps if, like billions of people on the planet, you are born without boots: Why do some people have endless pairs of expensive boots for every occasion while others go barefoot?
At this point in my life I lacked an understanding of how culture, and racism played enormous roles in who held the preponderance of the capital, who set the wages, and who needed the jobs, particularly during the advent of the industrial revolution. I didn't understand how this basic imbalance, an imbalance rooted in racism, slavery and the exploitation of the indigenous people from less technologically advanced societies, had shaped how wealth and poverty would play out in the US and around the world over the course of colonialism and the industrial revolution. I knew little of Colonialism and its role in increasing the wealth of some parts of the world through the violent oppression and exploitation of much of the rest of the world. And, entrenched in Libertarianism’s dogmatism, I didn't recognize the simple logic that if a system failed to benefit most people, and instead repeatedly benefited only an elite, then those people whom the system did not benefit had every right, and should make every effort, to change the system to one that worked more fairly.
Libertarianism is dogmatic and static – not dynamic and capable of change. It sees the US Constitution and the basic precepts of capitalist economies as universally the best and only answers to all social ills. Again, I recognized this as troubling but was unsure of exactly what the flaw was. From an idealistic or theoretical perspective, allowing every person to fail or succeed by their own motivation and skills, and promoting a charitable society that voluntarily assists those who are victims of bad luck and/or possessed of less marketable talents wasn’t entirely unpalatable. But still I questioned, who decides what a marketable skills is? Currently MTV commands a far larger market than NPR and this reality influences to a great degree for instance how folks looking for employment in the media focus their talents – while this is good for Viacom, is it good for society in the long-term? My study of evolution in biological anthropology and evolutionary biology classes would help me understand more fully my conflict with Libertarians lack of dynamism. I began to make a connection between diversity providing adaptability and progress. Libertarians would always answer accusations of conservatism and stagnation with, “The Constitution can always be amended if enough people agree.” But, I saw a strange parallel between the lessons learned about biological evolution and diversity with political evolution. Amending the constitution is a slow, rare and almost impossible task. Those species that evolve too slowly as their environment changes usually go extinct. I worry in a similar fashion about our society. While Libertarians hold no sway in our legislature, some of their thinking is echoed in the conservative agenda that rules the roost in DC. I worry that indeed, if we are not dynamic, diverse in our political options/traits, we might experience the same plight as a species that cannot adapt.
I also lacked a sense of political cultural relativism, so to speak. I instead, saw some sort of universal "correctness" about capitalism and had a hard time understanding that any socioeconomic or political system is essentially arbitrary. It was in my sociocultural theory, and my readings of thinkers like Edward M. Said that I came to understand that these systems are indeed social constructions, not handed down from a higher power; rejecting one in favor of another that offers more benefits to more people is not unethical, "evil" or in anyway irrational. In fact, quite the opposite: to ignore inequality, its history, its roots, and its current manifestations, and to pursue and recreate cultural practices that only succeed in creating disparity and conflict is hardly successful, productive or adaptive – or rational. Take that Ayn Rand.
As I said, I was not entirely persuaded by Libertarian philosophy. I had my doubts, I had my questions, and these internal conflicts would only widen during my four-year tenure at the helm of my own newspaper. The following passage written for one of my graduate applications describes rather aptly this period of my life and how it lead to my studying anthropology:
Always having been fascinated by the underdog’s story (and in a way that may have been part of my attraction to Libertarianism – they make up some one or two percent of the voting public), we tended to pursue stories that showed iconoclasts, innovative artists, political underdogs, or under-funded activists fighting against a dismissive status quo. During these years I met a number of passionate caring and compassionate people whose work relied on a combination of funding and support form myriad sources. More often than not, if these people had 1/10th of the financial resources their "competitors" had, their successes and impact would have been tremendous.
I frequently investigated the plight of individuals who had somehow been slighted or forgotten by bureaucracies. I found myself analyzing cultural, political and other mechanisms that make up both real and perceived social barriers. I noted how official policies and cultural practices often, without apology, favored one class, race, neighborhood, gender, etc. over another. I struggled to understand the “hows” and “whys” of this inequality. I was also often disappointed that so many smaller sources, non-profit organizations, local activists and artists would go untapped for input on issues. The sources and “experts” used by major media seldom came from lower classes, non-profit organizations or third party politicians and instead tended to represent corporations, banks, dominant political parties and other established institutions. Where were the minority and alternative voices?
But the economic realities of the media industry (entertainment vs. information) and the limitations of journalism as a discipline only allowed me to scratch the surface of issues of social inequality. I was forced to ask myself whether or not journalism was the right place for me.
Less than five years after founding an independent newspaper, it was sold to an out of state corporate player. But I wouldn’t be there by the time that happened. Conflicting visions between my business partner and I and internal dissatisfaction with commercial media in general on my part had resulted in my leaving the company I helped start. After more than a decade of writing for primarily independent publications, I still felt I lacked the tools to investigate inequality satisfyingly. I was no longer interested in honing my writing skills or trying to sell my skills to an industry that was less and les interested in any writing that did not first serve the interests of profit, circulation and shareholders. So, I returned to school where I discovered that it was possible to do more than scratch the surface on important questions regarding inequality. Alternative and activist journalisms, I came to recognize, only look at the current permutations of social inequality, but anthropology, and archaeology in particular, provide tools to research deeper causes for social inequality.
My study of archaeology would combine the questions and skills I had developed in media with anthropological training. I don’t think it is a stretch to say that the archaeology courses here at UMass tend to focus on issues of social inequality, relativism, and the search for lost or ignored perspectives – minority voices in the past oft forgotten or thought unimportant. Professors I have studied with here often turn away from “great man’s history” and give than a nod to “people’s history.” A strong interest in the cultures of those dominated define the intellectually challenging (and satisfying) examinations of the archaeological record at UMass Boston. A few paragraphs from another draft of my personal statement for grad school I think best illustrate this:
At the end of my first semester, I was accepted to a National Science Foundation funded field school at Sylvester Manor in Long Island, NY. While one of the field school’s stated goals was the discovery of the Manor Lord’s home, the director of the field school, Stephen Mrozowski, often gathered the crew together to discuss other research questions. On one of these occasions he spoke of a complete lack of archaeological evidence for the presence of African slaves on the plantation. Documentary evidence indicated several dozen slaves had lived on the plantation in the latter half of the 17th century and large numbers of artifacts attributed to Dutch and English colonists as well as the Native Americans who occupied the island had been unearthed. But not a single artifact conclusively spoke to the presence of Africans at the site. The slaves, Mrozowski told us, were “archaeologically invisible.”
This absence of data spoke volumes about the lives the slaves led. Research has shown that slaves maintained and preserved elements of their cultural heritage even under the most adverse conditions, and that a variety of African traditions were preserved (ie: Leland Ferguson’s study of Colonoware, Uncommon Ground). And yet, at Sylvester Manor, there was not a shred of evidence in the material remains pointing to the presence of slaves. How completely stripped of their culture were these African slaves? What was the effect of such a process on their identity? Did they attempt to recreate any part of their formerly free lives in the colonies with the material at hand which was escaping our investigation? My head swam with questions, and this was only my first dig.
And it has been during my studies of anthropology and archaeology that I realized something peculiar about by former comrades in the Libertarian party. If you asked a Libertarian what three things were most criminal in their mind; what three things might be the only crimes punishable by law, the only reasons to fund a police force, the only things that a state or people should consider punishable and the practice of which should be abhorred, they would be: Violence upon another individual, the theft or destruction of another's property, and deceit, particularly in regards to contractual agreements.
The US was founded on all three of these abhorrent practices and the resultant social stratification formed during the founding of our country plays an enormous role in the social problems we face today. The class system we live with is not one born of some sort of natural balance struck by the “gifts” bestowed upon us from on high, but by the clash of cultures possessed of unequal shares of power and wealth over time. While history can tell us a great deal about slave trade and the chronology of Colonialism, anthropology has shown me to look far deeper than question of what happened when, and instead ask, what happened to whom and why?
Studies in immigration and the histories of revolutions, as well as Historical Archaeological classes I have taken have clearly illustrated social developments that I was only vaguely aware of. A tremendous amount of the wealth in the US was built upon the violent practice of slavery and, to a lesser extent the racist exploitation of immigrant workers (i.e. Asians in the West and Italian and Irish Immigrants in the east during the 19th century). The labor provided by slavery and racial exploitation built tremendous wealth for an elite, primarily white, northern and western Europeans. And while slavery was less directly impacting in much of the north of the US, the factories there benefited from the wealth of the south. Mills in Lowell industrialized, shutting out the smaller manufacturer as elite-owned mills strove to supply huge volumes of cheap shoes and other products to slaveholders in the south. This wealth both allowed for a hyper-growing financial system within the country that again, favored whites of certain European descent and also allowed the US to establish a global financial superiority that allows it to this day to have undue influence over the economy of much of the world. While England and most other western nations abolished slavery and moved towards economies that required at least some wage for workers, the US out-competed much of the rest of the world in the early 19th century on the backs of slaves violently kept in that position. In the US, slavery allowed an enormous economic advantage for certain cultures, races and classes. Globally, Europeans did gain a similar, but somewhat less financially profitable advantage over what are now developing nations through rampant colonialism and oppression of people living in much of the global south. What I never factored into the idealism of Libertarianism is the fact, that historically, the world over, violence, oppression and land grabbing by the militarily powerful over the militarily less developed lead to an imbalance in power and wealth that still continues and is enormously unresolved today.
No one class opened my eyes to the flaws and omissions of Libertarian philosophy regarding violence and oppression past and present. I was as equally amazed at what I learned in a US Immigration class with professor Aparicio as I was with reading Kathleen Bragdon's analysis of Native Americans in the Northeast for a Historical Archeology class. In that same class Steve Mrozowski had us read papers by archaeologists analyzing the ideology of the powerful through the analysis of elite flower gardens, factories and even the division of British farmland and other landscapes. The simplest analysis of how capital, space and labor is managed, divided and exploited shone tremendous light on various methods of exploitation that have been used. And, while Libertarian philosophy gives tremendous lip service to its abhorrence of violence, to suggest to Libertarians that the current division of wealth was unfairly precipitated by violence and that it isn’t fair to say, "all bad forgiven, let's just have an open competition with the cards dealt the way they are, ok?" often results in claims by Libertarians of blaming the society of the present for the faults of the past.
What I've come to realize is that in understanding inequality and proposing solutions it seems less important to "blame" anyone in the past, and more important to understand that less than idealistic methods have been used in sharing the resources of the world and accepting the diversity of its cultures, and that moving forward, we should acknowledge and recognize damaging ideas of the past, and make every effort to use these lessons to build better relationships, polices and social systems in the future.
I have been involved in various types of activism most of my adult life. What I practiced in these efforts, without realizing it, is that working on social change requires considerable anthropological understanding. Being able to bridge gaps between people with diverse and sometimes opposing perspectives on the same topic requires an understanding not only of the topic in dispute but also of the cultures that each side have been living in and how these biases affect their conclusions. I wish more politicians had anthropological training because such training allows one to uniquely understand the necessity of community, the importance of accepting cultural difference and the necessity of letting people live the way that best works for them.
I now see government as simply an extension of community – one that can be corrupted but one that can also be directed. I believe that my study of anthropology has allowed me to see new questions to situations. In regards to the rent control issue that I opened this essay with, I no longer simply ask, doesn't a homeowner have the right to charge whatever price s/he fails is fair for renting space in his or her home? Instead, I am intrigued by what I feel to be deeper questions: has property been concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy developers fairly? Does anyone have a right to hold more property than they need for themselves? What advantages have certain races, cultures, classes, ethnicities had over others that has not allowed the level playing field that so many financial conservatives, Libertarians among them, claim exists in America? Do we truly educate all of our children equally and is such a goal something that we as a society value? Rather than scream, “taxation is theft” I ask questions now that acknowledge that all communities need to share resources and that not all members are willing or capable to equally contribute – how do we go about resolving those conflicts and problems?
I don't claim to have answers to these questions, but I do finally have the questions. I can, at last, verbalize the internal conflict in thought that often plagued me in my 20s. The study of anthropology has provided me with the vocabulary, the intellectual background and the passion to dig deep into the roots of conflict that mainstream politics seems to be unable to address. My undergraduate education has provided me the skills to question every premise and not accept any answer as necessarily complete, but relative to an infinite number of temporary conditions and unique biases. While this may seem more like a curse than an advantage, it is leaps and bound beyond the intellectual frustration and confusion that was so much a part of my internal dialogue previous to pursuing my degree. And, ultimately, the last two years have motivated me to continue to look for answers, to broaden my education even further, and I am grateful for the motivation that every professor in this university whom I have studied with has helped to instill in me.

Thoughts on the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah

So I’ve had way too much time to watch CNN these days, and as a lot of friends know I’m a bit of an NPR junky. As a result, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking on what’s been going on for the last few weeks regarding the conflict between Israel, Hezbollah and Lebanon. I’ve spent the last few days working on the following essay and if any of you should take the time to read this and want to offer any feedback, I’d love to hear from ya. Oddly enough, I did consider sending this to the Weekly Dig, my old stomping grounds. They still have an opinion column that use to be written primarily by readers or non-Digsters, called Soapbox. I clicked on the link at their site and came across a variety of articles including the Savage Love column, which I don’t think is a “Soapbox” column so I’m not sure if the “Soapbox” link links to more than just “Soapbox” pieces, or if that one Savage Love column is an isolated error or if the term "Soapbox" has a different meaning there then it use to during my tenure. Whcihever, the type of material they’ve recently run, a satire on the “Dummies” series mascot, a gay conversation on “faggotry” and a writer's odd lament to an ovary she is having removed, suggested to me that I am still not quite right for that paper. If anyone reading this thinks I’m just being self-defeating, let me know, maybe I’ll submit it for kicks…

***



In the last few days Israel’s military has killed UN observers, dozens of women and children in an apartment building, damaged hospitals, interfered in humanitarian aid convoys and now this: Israel causes 'worst environmental disaster' in Mediterranean. Granted, the source is Tehran Times, no fan of Israel, and Hezbollah is raining rockets on Israel daily, but I am hardly convinced that Israel's response has been proportionate to the threat or can accomplish its stated goals of breaking Hezbollah. Furthermore, the more intensely Israel seems to attack, the more intensely Hezbollah seems to respond, and additionally, the more intensely Israel attacks, the more disasters that befall the region (the aforementioned deaths of women and children, UN observers, the oil spill, etc.).

Israel is surrounded by nations that would love to see it disappear. Of this there is no doubt, but what is also undeniable is that its current actions against Lebanon are not increasing its long term security or opening up opportunities for dialogue with the many enemies Israel faces in the region. While nationalistic hyperbole like, “we must secure our borders” seems like practical justification for the attacks, the results of these actions carry with them long term emotional and political impact that, in my opinion, outweigh subscribing to the simplistic notion that protecting one’s border through military violence against a threatening neighbor is always justified. There is no question that all nations have the right to protect their borders but it is more than prudent to ask, what is the best way to protect those borders? Israel’s use of overwhelming force on Lebanon is hardly looking like the best way.

A question not being discussed very much in media is: where is the Lebanese army in all this? This article, from Bloomberg Financial of all places, indicates that the Lebanese army is avoiding the conflict for fear of putting the country into a civil war. The government apparently lacks the political will to remove Hezbollah because the militia/political party has such widespread support from many Muslims in Lebanon. Additionally, the Lebanese military is not strong enough to face off with Hezbollah according to experts in the region. Given this knowledge, which Israel Defense Forces must have and in far more detail than Bloomberg Financial, what is Israel thinking? If it is well known that the nation of Lebanon can’t displace Hezbollah, even under peacetime conditions, why have we heard Israel so often critical of Lebanon for not having removed Hezbollah? And, if Hezbollah is as popular and powerful as it appears to be and have been for years, does Israel really think it can break Hezbollah by laying waste to the infrastructure of what little democratic power there was in Lebanon? Is it not plainly clear that for every few dozen rockets or launchers that Israel takes out, it is doing far more damage to any possible stable government in Lebanon? And wouldn’t a growing and progressing democracy centered in Beirut be the best long term solution to preventing hostility by Hezbollah towards Israel? Even if it is technically possible for Israel to break Hezbollah militarily, at what cost will such a victory, if it can ultimately be called that, be won? Already the list of unintentional atrocities is very high, and Lebanon has been set back decades in both its political and economic progress, and this is only after three weeks of conflict.

While Syrian and Iranian support of Hezbollah is a given, such an accusation is a red herring in regards to seeking a cease fire and an end to the current violence. The wider political problems of the region are immense and complex, and the US perspective of seeking political solutions before a cease fire be implemented sounds perplexingly like Bush and Co. would like to somehow solve centuries of conflict over the next few days before asking Israel to stop bombing Lebanon. Furthermore, while much has been said about Hezbollah’s kidnapping of several soldiers a few weeks ago that sparked this offensive by Israel, little has been said about exactly why Hezbollah committed such an act – and it should be noted that this initial attack by Hezbollah was not on civilians, but on a military target; soldiers, not civilians, were the intended victims of Hezbollah at the time. One thing I have found myself wondering about is that although several sources have stated that Hezbollah has demanded the release of all Lebanese prisoners held by Israel in return for the Israeli soldiers they abducted, I can’t help but think that Israel’s arrest of 100 Hamas politicians in Palestine, including the speaker of Palestine’s parliament and several sitting ministers on June 30th, can hardly be discounted as motivating anti-Israeli factions all over the Middle east to consider action against Israel as justified. I can not think of any nation on earth that would sit back and watch as its prime minister and other members of its parliament were rounded up by a foreign country and do nothing. In fact, I think the most reasonable assumption is that any nation facing such action would immediately strike back and if incapable of doing so itself, would look to its allies to move on its behalf. Israel had to have known this when it made the arrests in June.

What I am suggesting, as many others have as well, is a Chicken or Egg argument for the violence in the Middle East. At this point, there appears to be no fair way to determine which came first, the violations of Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel – but what is known is that Israel’s attacks on Lebanon appear to be doing as much, if not more damage, to the innocent civilian population of a formerly burgeoning Lebanon, and to other innocent bystanders (the UN, the environment) than they appear to be damaging Hezbollah.

Israel, by any logical appraisal of the situation, can neither break Hezbollah nor win the return of its soldiers via its current tactics. It can however further worsen relations in the region, and, even distance itself from some of its western allies. Given this, an immediate cease-fire is not only the humane thing to do, but also in Israel’s best interest in that it will then allow Israel to focus on other potentially more fruitful solutions to its impasse with Hezbollah.

Will Hezbollah accept a cease fire? There is only one way to find out – and that is to give it a go. If Hezbollah does not abide by an offered ceasefire, than Israel would be far more justified in launching another offensive and/or working with a multinational force to protect the border and seek out Hezbollah strongholds. If Israel offers an olive branch and Hezbollah refuses it, there is little justifiable criticism that could be brought towards Israel for resuming military actions against an aggressor that refuses a peace offering. If Hezbollah does agree to a cease fire, than the world at large could work to both assist in resolving the current conflict with Hezbollah (and Israel may have to concede that its tactics of arrests in Palestine and widespread bombing of civilian targets in Lebanon were disproportionate in order to genuinely protect its borders) as well as begin humanitarian aid efforts in Lebanon, along with the slow rebuilding, yet again, of a country shattered by war for far too long.