Imagine if, as a result of the Mumbai bombings, the Indian government assumed Pakistan was to blame and, without consulting any of its allies, laid waste to the international airport in Islamabad -- or worse. Or imagine Japan deciding that one more North Korean missile test over its waters or land was too many, before attacking North Korean missile bases.
Would a reasonable person expect Washington to respond to such actions with the line, "We respect the right of [insert name of country] to defend itself"? No: Americans would be expected to deplore acts of revenge and retaliation that are out of all proportion to the provocation because of the long-term instability that this feeds, if not triggering outright war.
But this is not the case with Israel and Lebanon.
Israel's bombing of the international airport in Beirut and residential areas nearby, killing at least 60 innocent people, would in any other part of the world be considered an act of war.
Israel seems to think it bombed the Hezbollah International Airport for the capture of its soldiers. In doing so, the Israelis have thumbed their noses at the safety of not only innocent Lebanese, but also the substantial community of foreigners in Beirut, as well as the safety of airlines and their passengers. Tel Aviv has also vividly nationalized what should have been a response against a specific group.
Indeed, the outrageousness of the attack is compounded by the typically muted reaction of the US and other world powers. Though US President George W. Bush has said that the Israeli attack might weaken the Lebanese government and that he would press for the offensive to stop, the primary message from Washington is simply this: "Israel has the right to defend itself," and that, ipso facto, bombing an international airport constitutes self-defense.
Witness this exchange between a member of the Washington press corps and US State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack on Thursday:
Question: "You've talked a lot about the need for Syria, Iran and other countries to recognize Lebanese sovereignty under 1559 and other UN resolutions. If you're not holding the Lebanese government responsible for these actions [Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers], do you think that the Israeli actions are an affront to Lebanese sovereignty?"
McCormack: "Look, we have made very clear that we, as well as others in the region, want to see this situation resolved. We would hope that it does not escalate. All of that said, we all understand Israel's right to defend itself."
A pathetic non-response to a crucial question.
Israel has been subjected to horrific and despicable attacks by people who have lost all sense of humanity such that they would dismember the bodies of civilians of all faiths. But Israel has also perpetrated unjust treatment against Palestinians for which it is rarely held to account. Perhaps it is only ever a matter of time before this kind of situation so degrades the morality of nations -- even a region -- that the unthinkable becomes the next best option.
It is critical that a powerful mediator be firm but fair to both sides. The US, however, continues to play down Israeli excesses while effectively rebuking all Palestinians -- and now all Lebanese -- for the actions of extremist minorities.
If the US continues to rationalize acts of excessive aggression, perhaps Taiwan's military may take some comfort from the possibility that strikes against major Chinese infrastructure such as the Three Gorges Dam and residential areas can be put on the table. Actually, there is no comfort to be had whatsoever, because Taiwan has much more to lose if such atrocities become feasible.
As long as the US plays down Israel's maverick behavior, the danger of Tehran and Beijing's militant governments aping Tel Aviv grows ever larger.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
RSS