I am, admittedly, no expert on Israel or the Palestinians, but isn’t collective punishment of an entire people the wrong solution to the terrorism perpetrated by a few? Indeed, isn’t this why so many in the Islamic world “hate us for our freedoms” to quote Mr. Bush? Please read this excerpt from Patrick Cockburn’s article in today’s online version of The Independent and then explain to me if I’m misreading the situation, because this sure looks like a policy of collective punishment to me:
Gaza is dying. The Israeli siege of the Palestinian enclave is so tight that its people are on the edge of starvation. Here on the shores of the Mediterranean a great tragedy is taking place that is being ignored because the world’s attention has been diverted by wars in Lebanon and Iraq.
A whole society is being destroyed. There are 1.5 million Palestinians imprisoned in the most heavily populated area in the world. Israel has stopped all trade. It has even forbidden fishermen to go far from the shore so they wade into the surf to try vainly to catch fish with hand-thrown nets.
To me this is the wrong approach at the wrong time. It is also against the conventions of the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Article 50:
No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.
Now, my purpose for citing that convention was not to start a legalistic discussion on whether Israel’s actions in response to terrorism by Hamas or other Palestinian groups is bound by this particular article under international law. I’m not enough of a legal scholar in that area to divine for you whether these “quaint” ideas should or shouldn’t apply to Hamas and/or Israel. Israel is a signatory to this convention, but I am reasonably certain that the Israeli government would insist that either their actions in Gaza does not constitute “collective punishment,” or that this particular convention doesn’t apply to the “unique” situation in the Palestinian Territories. Who knows, they may be right, from a strictly legal standpoint.
(cont.)
However, I do know that what is happening in Gaza offends me, and I would hope offends you, regardless of your sympathies toward Israel, or your political views on the issue of the “Palestinian Question.” Allow me to quote a little more of Patrick Cockburn’s report on the current situation of the people of Gaza to you:
Many people are being killed by Israeli incursions that occur every day by land and air. A total of 262 people have been killed and 1,200 wounded, of whom 60 had arms or legs amputated, since 25 June, says Dr Juma al-Saqa, the director of the al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City which is fast running out of medicine. Of these, 64 were children and 26 women. […]
It was on 25 June that the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was taken captive and two other soldiers were killed by Palestinian militants who used a tunnel to get out of the Gaza Strip. In the aftermath of this, writes Gideon Levy in the daily Haaretz, the Israeli army “has been rampaging through Gaza – there’s no other word to describe it – killing and demolishing, bombing and shelling, indiscriminately”.
Just as insidious, as Cockburn reports, are the effects on Gaza’s economy from Israel’s actions. Two thirds of adults are unemployed. Many of those who still have jobs (primarily with the government) are not being paid. Crime is rampant. In the face of starvation (literal, not figurative starvation) people are doing anything they can to feed their families. The economic situation has also spurred political strife among the populace between the Hamas government and the Al Fatah, the party of the recently deceased Palestinian leader, Yassir Arafat, which Hamas deposed in last year’s democratic elections. Marches, protest strikes by unpaid soldiers and other demonstrations have pushed Gaza to the edge of civil war between these two competing factions.
All this is the direct result of the virtual siege Israel has imposed on the people of Gaza, and the indifference and deliberate neglect of this situation by Europe and the United States. We may not see reports about what is happening there on our television screens, but you can be sure that broadcasts from Gaza by Arab news organizations are being shown daily throughout the Arab world. And they will blame the united States for this situation as much as, if not more than, they do Israel.
Now perhaps some of you will say that the Palestinians brought this on themselves. They elected Hamas. Let them suffer the consequences of that choice. Certainly that is the position of the Bush administration. But I believe it to be a deeply cynical and inhumane attitude. The political situation in Gaza is far more complex, and yes, nuanced, than such a simplistic and shallow analysis would suggest.
Furthermore, it is in our own national interest to see that the people in Gaza are treated humanely. Americans will suffer the consequences of these Israeli policies, because we are rightly seen as Israel’s primary sponsor and ally. What happens there to a child orphaned by Israeli bombs, or to a family whose home has been bulldozed, or to a father whose son is killed, will be laid to rest at our feet. To the Islamic world, their blood is on our hands, and they will hold us responsible. That is why all Presidential administrations since President Carter have made peace between Israel and the Palestinians a top priority of our Foreign Policy. Every administration until now that is.
Let me close with one final point regarding the issue of whether the actions of the Israelis, and our government’s tacit agreement to them, constitutes a war crime. Some may believe that the Palestinian people in Gaza are not being targeted collectively for the actions of Hamas terrorists. Others may accept the argument by the IDF and the Israeli government that their actions are necessary as a matter of national security. And many may even tell themselves that this is just another front in the War on Terror which, of course, the Arabs started.
Be that as it may, when faced with similar injustices by an occupying power in the last decade of the 20th Century, it was America’s policy that the leaders responsible for the actions taken by the military forces at their disposal should be held accountable for the death and destruction those force wrought on civilians. I am speaking, of course, of the war crimes tribunal with respect to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, and specifically with respect to the actions by Serbian forces against civilians in Kosovo.
Please take a look at the indictment of the Serbian leaders by the International tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. I think you will find its charges illuminating:
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Case No. IT-99-37-I
THE PROSECUTOR OF THE TRIBUNAL
AGAINST
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
MILAN MILUTINOVIC
NIKOLA SAINOVIC
DRAGOLJUB OJDANIC
VLAJKO STOJILJKOVIC[…]
17. The campaign of terror and violence directed at the Kosovo Albanian population was executed by the VJ, the police forces of the FRY, police forces of Serbia, and paramilitary units (all hereinafter forces of the FRY and Serbia) acting at the direction, with the encouragement, or with the support of Slobodan MILOSEVIC, Milan MILUTINOVIC, Nikola SAINOVIC, Dragoljub OJDANIC, and Vlajko STOJILJKOVIC. The operations targeting the Kosovo Albanians were undertaken with the objective of removing a substantial portion of the Kosovo Albanian population from Kosovo in an effort to ensure continued Serbian control over the province. To achieve this objective, the forces of the FRY and Serbia, acting in concert, engaged in well-planned and co-ordinated operations as described in paragraphs 18 through 24 below.
18. The forces of the FRY and Serbia, in a systematic manner, forcibly expelled and internally displaced hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians from their homes across the entire province of Kosovo. To facilitate these expulsions and displacements, the forces of the FRY and Serbia intentionally created an atmosphere of fear and oppression through the use of force, threats of force, and acts of violence.
19. Throughout Kosovo, the forces of the FRY and Serbia looted and pillaged the personal and commercial property belonging to Kosovo Albanians forced from their homes. Policemen, soldiers, and military officers used wholesale searches, threats of force, and acts of violence to rob Kosovo Albanians of money and valuables, and in a systematic manner, authorities at FRY border posts stole personal vehicles and other property from Kosovo Albanians being deported from the province.
20. Throughout Kosovo, the forces of the FRY and Serbia engaged in a systematic campaign of destruction of property owned by Kosovo Albanian civilians. This was accomplished through the widespread shelling of towns and villages; the burning of homes, farms, and businesses; and the destruction of personal property. As a result of these orchestrated actions, villages, towns, and entire regions were made uninhabitable for Kosovo Albanians.
21. Throughout Kosovo, the forces of the FRY and Serbia harassed, humiliated, and degraded Kosovo Albanian civilians through physical and verbal abuse. Policemen, soldiers, and military officers persistently subjected Kosovo Albanians to insults, racial slurs, degrading acts, beatings, and other forms of physical mistreatment based on their racial, religious, and political identification. […]
24. Beginning on or about 1 January 1999 and continuing until 20 June 1999, forces of the FRY and Serbia, acting at the direction, with the encouragement, or with the support of Slobodan MILOSEVIC, Milan MILUTINOVIC, Nikola SAINOVIC, Dragoljub OJDANIC, and Vlajko STOJILJKOVIC, murdered hundreds of Kosovo Albanian civilians. These killings occurred in a widespread or systematic manner throughout the province of Kosovo and resulted in the deaths of numerous men, women, and children.
Are the two situations directly comparable? No, they are not. Nonetheless, the actions taken by Serbian forces and the IDF share many striking similarities, do they not? Forced evictions. The indiscriminate bombing and shelling of civilians. Destruction of real and personal property. The physical and psychological degradation and humiliation of local populations. The deaths of numerous civilians, deaths which both forces knew were predictable consequences of their actions. We may find a distinction between the actions of the Serbs in Kosovo, and the Israelis in Gaza, but the Palestinians and the Arab world does not.
And I remind you, the Serbian population and its leaders also contended that their actions were justified by terrorist attacks upon Serbs by Kosovan terrorist organizations. Yet, in the case of Kosovo, we thought otherwise, and we subsequently held the Serbian leadership accountable by bringing a war crimes indictment against them. Across the Middle East, Arabs saw what we did with respect to the atrocities committed by Serbs against Kosovo’s civilians. And today, they see what we fail to do with respect to Israel’s treatment of the civilian population in Gaza. In their minds the two cases are much the same, and can you really blame them for thinking that?
I am not suggesting that we insist upon trying Israeli leaders as war criminals. That would only be counterproductive to any long term solution for the region, as well as being impossible from a domestic political standpoint. But at a minimum, we should be actively engaged with the Palestinians and the Israelis seeking an end to violence in the short term, and a peace accord which will allow both groups to coexist as independent and secure states in the long term. Instead the US government sits by passively and does nothing. Our media rarely report on the violence there.
And the Arabs see our apparent indifference to Palestinian suffering and draw their own conclusions.
Steven,
I think you make the wrong analogy using Bosnia-Serbia. You need to use WWII Germany or Japan as your example, and compare Israel to the US in about late 1944! War is hell and civilians suffer. During WWII, you post above would be laughed at in America and you would be ostracized. The reason would be that the “other” side started the hostilities, and until the victory is won, well war is hell.
Israel is in a war for its very survival, and make no misinterpretation about that. I believe many on this blog, including yourself, fail to recognize that fact, and you treat the entire Israeli-Palestinian equation as if it were the Bush Iraqi misadventure. Again, it is not, but it is Israel fighting, as we did in WWII, for its very existence. Therefore, until this war is brought to a clear and obvious end point, hell will go on. On the flip side, the answer to ending suffering in both sides, is to stop stalling a clear end point and either help it come about or stand back and let it happen. There is a cancer of sorts in the middle east, and palliative treatment will cure nothing, IMHO!
Yes! Kill them all, for they are evil. Only by burning out the cancer can Israel survive. After all, it is the other that attacked Israel by invading their land and displacing their people and taking their homes. It is the other that were in a situation of strength, whose tanks stand at the borders of their land.
I respectfully disagree. Israel is not engaged in a war like that agaisnt the Nazis and japan in WWII, but one that more closely resembles the french in Algeria (though even that is a flawed analogy — there is no analogy that really encompasses all of thenuances of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict).
Israel suffers more today from a prolongation of Palestinian suffering because that is what fuels the radiacals and extremists among the populations in the occupied territories and among Islamic populations in general. I do not believe Israel can continue in this manner, unless it is willing to eliminate the entire palestinian population through genocide, something which I believe no rational person one in Israel would support. Yet to reach an accomodation between Israel and the palestinians, the US must get involved.
The use of kosovo as analogous to Israel’s situation is done to highlight why the Arab world sees America and American policy toward israel as hypocritical. Are the two situations the same? I said they were not. But Arabs do see them as identical, and there are enough similarities to justify their opinion. By standing aside and allowing the IDF to run roughshod throughout Gazaour government is sending a message (just as it does in Iraq) that Arab lives man nothing to it. That is a very dangerous message to send in my view.
I won’t argue with you as to the isuue of Hamas and its actiuons. I acknowledge that they are morally and legally indefensible. But the Israeli response to the problem of Hamas is not a valid or particularly moral one either. Oppression, regardless of the initial reasons for it, after a while takes on a life of its own. And the people being oppressed to not turn away from violence. Indeed, they embrace it all the more, for what do they have to lose by doing so. They believe Israeli oppression will continue regardless of their actions. All Israel is doing is perpetrating a cycle of hatred and vengeance, and we are aiding and abetting them in that by not staying actively engaged in diplomatic efforts to bring peace and security to teh region.
Steven,
I want to make 2 points to show how my analogy may fit.
allowing the IDF (US forces) to run roughshod throughout Gazaour (Germany or Japan) government is sending a message (just as it does in Iraq) that Arab (German and Japanese) lives mean nothing to it. That is a very dangerous message to send in my view.
In other words, you look at what Israel is doing now as an end point, and I am telling you their muddled actions are a midpoint (and maybe a mistake), which will have to continue and get worse until one side surrenders or loses outright (whatever that entails) or a real workable compromise is truly found that both parties actually support and can live by!!
As this war (and it is a war!) keeps festering like that cancer, it will eventually hit a vital organ and bad but decisive things will finally happen. I do not have a crystal ball to show me the ultimate answer, but I know that blaming IDF for trying to force a surrender of their enemy is not the correct approach. If anything, as the WWII analogy shows us, much more definitive force, if that is the street one goes down, might be preferable toward a real ending!
The problem with Israel is that no one is asking them to lose their military. The problem is that military solutions cannot solve their problems. Only a concerted, long term effort to work toward peace can do that. Otherwise they will remain trapped in their bunker mentality, and more Palestinians and Israelis will die.
I don’t suggest I have the final end all be all answer, but failure to engage by the Bush adminsitration is not the solution, nor is Irael’s continued policy of massive reprisals. Violence breed violence.
WWII was a completely different situation. It was literally a world war agaisnt nation states who had attacked their neighbors and invaded their countries. The subsequent occupations of germany and Japan were supported by all the other nations of the world, and also by the very bneighbors of Japan and germany who had suffered so much at the hands of the Nazis and Japanese militarists.
In Israel you have a geographical scale that makes any defense solely from a military responsen standpoint a practical impossibility today in our world of modern weapons and terrorists. Short of killing every Arab within a thousand mile radius of Israel, a military solution is not viable. What Israel needs to do is find a way out of this cycle of violence which at is cores is fueled by racial, ethnic and religious differences.
I’m sorry but your WWII analogy fails for me.
I think too fast to type straight.
sigh
In Israel you have a geographical scale that makes any defense solely from a military responsen standpoint a practical impossibility today in our world of modern weapons and terrorists. Short of killing every Arab within a thousand mile radius of Israel, a military solution is not viable. What Israel needs to do is find a way out of this cycle of violence which at is cores is fueled by racial, ethnic and religious differences.
These are powerful and true words, but they just describe a serious situation, not a solution, except for one which is unacceptable!
I am afraid that considering mankind’s track record on such cycle of violence which at is cores is fueled by racial, ethnic and religious differences, real solution short of massive destruction of someone are going to be very hard to achieve. Superficial feel good talk will solve nothing and will not win political capital among voters, IMO. When you criticize, well also be realistic and give some solutions that could work considering the real underlying causes even if not fitting your feel-good mode of the day!
When you criticize, well also be realistic and give some solutions that could work considering the real underlying causes even if not fitting your feel-good mode of the day!
The underlying cause is the settlements.
Israel is not engaged in a war like that agaisnt the Nazis and japan in WWII, but one that more closely resembles the french in Algeria (though even that is a flawed analogy — there is no analogy that really encompasses all of thenuances of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict).
I am not going to dive head first into this debate since I have engaged in numerous debates on this issue in the past. And even though I know you say that the above analogy not quite portrays the Israeli/Palestinian conflict accurately, I just want to point to the fact that The Israelis do see this conflict in a broader context than that. The involvement of the whole Arab world, yes even the Islamic world, just adds credibility to this belief, according to many Israelis. This conflict is very much about the difference of perceptions and the total lack of trust between the different parties.
No it isn’t in a war for its survival. No Arab neighbor is nearly as powerful as germany or Japan. It is in a war for territory on the west bank.
Israel is fighting for its survival simply because it exists, and that existence is, by any reasonable measure, illegitimate. The state of Israel consists exclusively of land seized by European adventurers from its Arab owners in the wake of WW2. In a sense, since the collapse of apartheid South Africa, it is the last European colonial state. That this is “justified” by biblical fairytales about the status quo 2000 years ago makes about as much sense as modern-day Anglo-Americans invading north-central Europe to reclaim the Saxon homeland. It’s utterly transparent bullshit, and if people weren’t afraid of accusations of antisemitism or in awe of the myths of bronze age savages, it would be said a lot more often.
The best parallel in recent history to the state of Israel is the Third Reich. Israel is predicated on the right of a superior race — the chose people of God, no less — to hold its sacred homeland, and to seize lebensraum from the lesser races around it, all of whom are, of course, plotting both within and without to destroy it. Because the survival of the master race is at stake, they may employ any means necessary, including the ghettoization of enemies internal and external, carry out massacres and pogroms in those ghettos, seize property at will, shoot civilians at random, and, when all else fails, starve those ghettos out. Minor border incidents, both real and imagined, are used to justify invasions of neighboring states like Pol– er, Lebanon. And if those inferior races, swarming like rats, actually manage to put up any remotely effective resistance to the invaders, then a final solution to the Palestinian question will have to be found.
But we can’t come out and say that, of course. These are Jews! Remember the Holocaust! For this we must make an exception to a state based on invasion, racial and religious superiority, mass population transfers and internment camps!
Bullshit. The lesson the rest of the civilized world learned from the Holocaust was never again. Apparently, the lesson that the Zionist community learned from the Holocaust was once more, with feeling.
Also posted in Orange
You brought your flame-proof jacket, right?
Very funny.
But seriously, what Israel is doing is counterproductive, and the truth of the matter is that the Arabs do view their actions in Gaza as criminal. If we stand by and do nothing when the US is seen as their largest supporter and ally, we will suffer the consequences of this in the future, as will israel. You cannot purchase security with violence. Atb best you can inflict poain and suffering, but unless you choose to adopt a policy of genocide, you cannot eliminate terrorism nor achieve security.
But I’m sure you know that.
Anyone who was really pro-Israeli would oppose their idiotic policies in Gaza. They are pushing ever closer to destroying their own state.
Not only the Arabs. Many Europeans hold that view also.
And this American does too!
Dare I say the word “genocide?”
I’m no political scientist (isn’t that an oxymoron?), but isolating a population from it’s lines of supply, starving people and continuing to rampage through their streets with destructive force sounds pretty “bad” do me.
The separatist faction in Israel (or anywhere for that matter) is a perverse force that is anti-evolutionary, anti-civilization, and should be illegal.
I have a diary regarding Darfur on the Orange One and cross posted Eurotrib. Part of it addresses the US Government’s and frequent Israeli government spokesmen’s assertions that the killing in Darfur is genocide. In it I explained that the killings may be heinous but did not meet the strict criteria in the UN Convention that defines Genocide. As usual a BBC background page proved very useful.
I included their quotes about common usage of the word and the dangers this posed of devaluing the term.
I have the greatest respect for Michael Ignatieff who I have always found both urbane and humane when I have seen him speaking – he has frequently appeared on the BBC.
I would suggest that, as with Darfur, the crucial matter of “intent to destroy” is not yet proven. Forced removal (ie “ethnic cleansing”) may be a war crime but as there is not intent to kill, it cannot be termed genocide under the Convention, however repulsive we may find the Israeli minister’s characterisation of the food blockade as “putting the Palestinians on a diet”. I mention this as I remember seeing recently reports of an opinion poll in Israel which claimed over 60% (IIRC) of Israelis wanted Arabs removed from Israel. That would not be a war crime (depending on where the Israelis and the court set the boundary of the area cleared) but it would be a “Crime against Humanity”
You should also note that because of the unique nature of Genocide, the Convention not only permits every signatory to “prevent and punish” but imposes a general duty to. In other words any country can and indeed must use all practical means at its disposal, including armed intervention if appropriate, to achieve this end. This is why the Balkans interventions can be claimed to be legal as the protagonists can argue they had a justifiable belief that there was an intent to destroy at least part of a population.
As I point out, the Sudanese governments actions are also aimed at groups which share their religious and ethnic identity. This is not the case with Israel and Gaza but their illegal collective punishments are not intended to kill a generalised group. Again that is not to say that there may have been previous actions which did reach the criteria. The purported aborted development of a biological weapon with the Apartheid regime in South Africa to reduce the fertility of Arabs would be explicity covered by one of the conditions but even then the matter of intent to destroy would be difficult to prove.
There is also an interesting application to the purported statements from the Iranian President. “Wiping the state of Israel from the map” would not be genocide as the intent is to change the political status of an area. Similarly “Drive Israel into the sea” is simple hyperbole of the previous statement. When you get to “Drive Isrealis into the sea” there are more problems but even here you have to take account the hyperbolic rhetoric and he could claim that his intent was not for them to die but emigrate.
Sorry to be so technical and go on at length but I thought it would be useful to cover several of the actions and speeches in the region that are often accused of being genocide but look as though it would be difficult to make a case for. The criteria are very high.
Ilan Pappe: Genocide in Gaza:
Sharon opposed the NATO intervention against Serbia (“brutal intervensionism”) which Israeli journalist Uri Averny noted was likely because:
If the Americans and the Europeans interfere today in the matter of Kosovo, what is to prevent them from doing the same tomorrow in the matter of Palestine? Sharon has made it crystal-clear to the world that there is a similarity and perhaps even identity between Milosevic’s attitude towards Kosovo and the attitude of Netanyahu and Sharon towards the Palestinians.” (fr. Robert Fisk’s The Great War for Civilization, p. 508)
Sharon would have joined Milosevic in the docket for his war crimes in Lebanon if not for the US threatening to NATO HQ pull out of Belgium. Of course, none of today’s criminals will either. Nor will the world see UN peacekeepers rushing to Gaza to protect the population from Israeli aggression.
As’ad AbuKhalil:
in gestation: Constellations
Very sad and thought provoking diary.
Just a couple of reactions. Yes, the Palestinians elected Hamas. But why? Is it not true that Hamas was one of the few organizations dealing constructively with the day to day social and economic concerns of the Palestinians? Hamas attitude and actions against Israel are unacceptable and counter-productive. But maybe, the Palestinians elected them because it was the one group of people on earth who heard their concerns and worked to alleviate their desperate situation.
I am sick to death of people thinking that a military or violent response will protects “us” from the “enemy.” Barring some major natural occurence like a tidal wave or volcanica eruption, there is little reason to believe that either the Palestinians or the Isarelis are going to leave the region.
If as much time, energy and money had been spent on ways to live together, find commonalities, and share resources as has been spent on militarism, the problem would have been long solved.
The Palestinians have a legitimate grievance over the formation of Israel, just as Native Americans have a grievance over the formation of the United States. However, the U.S. and Israel now exist and the emphasis should be on justice, cooperation, equality and respect.
I am sick to death of people thinking that a military or violent response will protects “us” from the “enemy.” Barring some major natural occurence like a tidal wave or volcanica eruption, there is little reason to believe that either the Palestinians or the Isarelis are going to leave the region.
But Kahli, the history of mankind is full of circumstances where extreme force did finally end smoldering crises! My WWII analogy is a clear one of them, but there are many, many others. You may not like that, but that’s life among mankind!
I am trying to show this progressive blog that Israel has legitimate survival concerns that in other times have lead to all-out wars that decided the crisis involved. You can try to disagree that today’s Israeli-Palestinian-Arab situation is such a crisis, but if you change your visualization of the situation to see it from an Israeli survival perspective, then a lot of what is written here is historically mistaken and dangerous for Israelis anyway.
I admit that it is much harder to see how the rest of the world fares if this crisis continues down the war road, but what predictions were being made about war results in say 1937??!
For reason stated in my other resposne to you i don’t believe the WWII analogy holds wwater. Instead look at israels own wars in which it gained or occupied additional territory. None of them have made Israel safe from the types of attacks it endures now. Only a political solution can do that.
It has a nuclear deterrent, so it can deter other countries inthe region, but that deterrent, and its military forces have proven ineffective in stopping or eliminating the threat posed by terrorists. How many times has Israel taken action in Gaza and the West Bank? How many times has it occupied Lebanon? Have any of those actions ended the threat? No.
What it needs are stable Arab naeighbors who have as much of an interest in maintaining security and combatting terrorists as Israel does. To achieve that will take a generational long effort. A continued use ofoverwhelming military force to fight an asymmetric war against Hamas and Hezbollah is not the answer.
In my view.
Steven,
Thanks for engaging, but I have another request of you! As an exercise, I would like you to put yourself into the 1937 political world, and thinking along your stated lines below:
What it needs are stable (GEREMAN or Japan) Arab neighbors who have as much of an interest in maintaining security and combatting terrorists as (Britain or US)Israel does. To achieve that will take a generational long effort. A continued use ooverwhelming military force to fight an asymmetric war against Hamas and Hezbollah (Germany or Japan) is not the answer.
How would you have prevented WWII. BTW, was it tried and why did it not happen? If I am correct in my analogy here, where are we therefore heading, and how can this situation’s ultimate end point be changed? Carry this analogy to that 1937 situation and tell me why and how WWII could have/should have been prevented in your mind? Again, why did it not work, and regardless, did not such huge use of force end that crisis?
I’m sorry. That WWII thing just doesn’t work. Israel has all the weapons, including nuclear weapons. No Arab country has gone to war with Israel since 1973. Israel is the one that has expanded its borders at the expense of weaker Arab neighbors, not the other way around. Comparing Israel’s situation with the Palestinians in Gaza and the west Bank to pre-WWII Europe is not valid.
What Israel faces is much closer to the situation France faced in Algeria, where French colonists had been born in and led their entire lives there, yet the native Algerians still considered the land theirs by right. Like the French in Algeria, Israel faces a threat from terrorists/native insurgents. Even Algeria is a very flawed analogy when compared to the complexity of the Israeli/Palestinian situation, but it is a lot closer to the mark than any other “lesson from history” can offer us by way of example.
Certainly, Israel has the mindset of a country on the brink of extinction, but that is not primarily the result of its current situation, where local terrorist organizations are the only actors who engage Israel in conflict. Israel’s mindset is based on a number of historical factors, most prominently the Holocaust and the early years of its creation where it really was an underdog fighting against a superior enemy force (in numbers). At present, however, noi country in the region would dare attack Israel. They may help fund the terrorist groups such as hezbollah and Hamas, but not one of them expects israel to simply vanish, despite their rhetoric.
The problem, as I see it, is that such hatred and animosity has been built up on both sides, that this particular cycle of low level conflict will continue indefinetely, until a political solution is found. That solution will requires the investment of American and European time, money and diplomatic resources to an extent we have not seen to date. Yet, consider what could be done if we had expended what Iraq has cost us in one year to attempting to solve the Israeli/Palestinian issue? With such resources a lot could be done in terms of a Marshall plan for Palestine.
The Palestinian people oppose Israel because their situation is so desperate and hopeless. I believe tangible improvemnts in the quality of their daily lives could go a long way toward improving the situation. And combine that with an intensive effort to reach a settlement between the parties, and maybe you would have the beginnings of a resolution.
Instead, we pour money into Israel’s military machine, deprive the Palestinians of any funds (forcing them to rely on other Arab donors, such as the Saudis, who have their own reasons for seeing this conflict continue). We spend a billions for weapons in Israel and in Egypt. What if we took some of that and spent it on economic development?
In the end, all the guns and bombs and soldiers won’t lessen the threat faced by Israel, nor will its current policies in Gaza and the west Bank give them the magic bullet than can eliminate their enemies, en toto. All it will do is increase the misery and suffering on all sides, build up further resentments and hatreds and feed the hunger for vengeance.
Israel has smart leaders with much information in their possession. Don’t you think they would know the situation if it was as you visualize it?? Either they are wrong or you are wrong, but the consequences of their being wrong are much much much (x1000) worse and more dangerous for them than the consequences of you being wrong.
I don’t know. from my reading of history and current events, I would say its those whose being wrong can have much greater negative effect in the world are almost always more likely to BE WRONG. such is the case here, I would say.
Israel has smart leaders with much information in their possession.
How do you explain their miscalculation in Lebanon. Israel’s leaders look like they went to the same dork school as Bush.
It remains to be seen if they miscalculated in Lebanon or just did not follow their instincts and plans far enough. Maybe this result IS what they intended!
You may have fallen for the propaganda around here that says they lost, but that is not so. Nobody in Lebanon will not tread lightly toward irritating Israel again, and that is part of the planned response intention. On a lighter note, peace negotiations are more likely to succeed now that Israel’s enemies see that Israel has been pushed to its limit and is not giving anymore. That is an important part of this dance!
Israel won huh! Maybe you should tell the Israeli public?
Actually I believe I am viewing it from an Israeli survival perspective. You may disagree, but I believe Israel and Palestine will both survive and thrive if they find other than violent means to pursue their needs. There is a lot to answer for on both sides, but since the chosen path has proven ineffectual and costly on many levels I would suggest a different course for both the Palestinians and the Israelis.
You say this is about Israel’s survival. Yet the survival of the Palestinian population is equally important. Many Zionists are rightly offended when the extremists Palestinians declare that Israel has no right to exist. Many of the same Zionists,however, deny that Palestine ever existed or that the Palestinians are legitmate community.
Both sides have to knock that crap off if they want to have any chance at survival. Both sides have to recognize the other’s legitimate concerns. Both have to accept responsibilty for the wrong they have done to the other.
As for your statement that extreme force has been an effective tool of mankind, perhaps that is true. But if our societies were not so deeply entrenched in the “manly” patriarchal views of dealing with each other perhaps “man”kind could have avoided such tragedies in the first place.
Both sides have to knock that crap off if they want to have any chance at survival. Both sides have to recognize the other’s legitimate concerns. Both have to accept responsibilty for the wrong they have done to the other.
The main item that I think needs to be added to this discussion is that if Israel had no military might and/or refused to use it, its enemies would crush it because they have shown no tolerance for Israel in the past. If what you hope for ever does happen, it will be largely due to the atmosphere currently set up by Israeli use of massive strength. Once Arab countries absolutely realize that they cannot destroy or take-over Israel, then and only then will they even consider reaching agreement.
Hey the Palestinians could have taking the Clinton peace offering, but they rejected it and for what? The atmosphere for fruitful negotiations evidently did not exist yet, and it will never exist until both sides see the power and end limit positions of the other side! That’s how the game is played people, not by wishful dreaming!
Clearly, you are willing to see only one side of the equation, and nothing will change your mind. That’s okay, you are not likely to change my mind either.
As for this:If what you hope for ever does happen, it will be largely due to the atmosphere currently set up by Israeli use of massive strength. .
Time will tell.
They rejected it because it wasn’t actually a final offer or a good deal.
Yes, look here for a sensible and compassionate view. Thanks Kahli
Kahli, one of the main reasons that Hamas got so many seats in the Palestinian Parliament was that Fatah was considered so corrupt and inffective.
Ironically, the corruption was a reason that Bush had to criticise Yasser Arafat although towards the end of his life he had started to address the more visible signs of it among his inner circle. There were suggestions that funds intended for public services were used to build villas for the senior politicians. The EU had suspended aid for a brief period to make sure these sorts of things were stopped. Although Arafat was thought of as “the father of the nation”, there were a lot of cronies who had gone into exile from Lebanon to Libya with him and had government posts when they went to Ramallah. They were rather disparagingly called “the Libyans” and of course were seen to have lived in luxury in exile while their people were suffering the land confiscations and the rest.
You have to realise that organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah are multi-faceted. The separation of religion and politics familiar in the US is alien as Islam is seen as a way of life rather than a religion. They also have a military “wing”. In western terms, you can think of this like the IRA’s relationship with Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. They were two sides of the same movememt (“the Armalite and the Ballot Box”). Although both those are mostly Catholic, the Sunni Islam of Hamas is not separate. One of the five pillars of Islam is Zakat or the giving of charity. (Strictly it means “purification” or “increase” as your capital is purified by giving and your spiritual “stock” is increased by the donation) For those with a minimum wealth, you have to give the equivalent of 2.5% of your net worth each year for charitable purposes. These are laid down in the Koran and it is usual to give it through the mosque to ensure the correct use is made of it. The situation here is again familiar in Europe where traditionally the churches operated schools, hospitals and other social services for the needy.
This is where the easy mis-representations come in. The usual response from the Israelis when they identify suicide bombers is to demolish the family home in revenge. (Sometimes the Israeli Defence Force will demolish a home just to provide an easier firing line or as communial punishment) The family is then homeless and in need of shelter which is one use the Zakat money can be used for.
So what happens is the religious side of Hamas gives the charity to the family to rebuild their home. That is then characterised by Israel and the neocons as the family of the suicide bomber being paid for the bomber’s attack. You may be familiar with another manifestation of this in Lebanon where Hezbollah are giving homeless families money for rent while the rebuilding of homes can be done. It’s not buying off people, it’s performing a religious duty to help the homeless.
Now because spending the alms is governed by the Koran, the mullahs ensure that no improper spending is made. That automatically means their spending is seen as not corrupt, in contrast to the secular politicians creaming off their “pork” to use an american term.
Now because they are part of the same movement, the politicians in Hamas the political party benefit from the perception of Hamas the charity being incorrupt because it is administered by Hamas the religious movement while Hamas the fighting group are heros for fighting the oppressors. With Hamas the fighting arm is not as highly trained or as security concious as that of Hezbollah who have learned how the more open recruitment has enabled the Israeli intelligence service to infiltrate. That means the Hezbollah fighters are far more highly “vetted”, tend to be more dedicated and are better trained, as the Israelis found out in Lebanon. It also means that each fighter is a more valuable asset than the “cannon fodder” suicide bombers that Hamas has to use. That in turn means that this tactic is far less used by Hezbollah.
I hope that quick gallop through Palestinian politics clarifies a lot of what you might be thinking – anything more come back to me and will try to put it in context. There are by the way secular parties as well which are not connected with Hamas and very much smaller Shia movements operating in a similar way ad the Sunni Hamas.
Thanks for the information.
Some of this reads like accounts from the Warsaw Ghetto, around 1942.
This ain’t ever going to bring 6 million back, or safeguard Israel.
(shaking head in dismay…)
When I taught school, there was always be a bully who blamed the victim. No matter what you said, no matter what you did, no matter how many parental meetings, etc, that kid was convinced that he was meting out just punishment. In reality, that kid was a dangerous aggressor. Those type of kids often showed no remorse for hurting another human… in fact they would feed off of the misery they caused. Israel is that bully, feeding off the misery of the Palestinians while waiting breathlessly for the next terror attack, weapons in hand.
Here’s my ‘feel good’ thought for the day: Israel, get over the victim mentality, stop killing and make peace with Palestine with a 2 state solution, no matter what it takes. Only then will the threats to Israel’s existence receed. Israel’s bad behaviors are eventually going to guarantee it’s destruction.
The American people don’t understand realpolitik, and will not learn. VP Cheney understands.
“the history of mankind is full of circumstances where extreme force did finally end smoldering crises…”
I’m not a historian, but my bet is that this was done via the extermination of military age males and the taking of the women and children as chattel and the incorporation of their lands into the new duchy, kingdom, what have you.
Maybe more to the point, the world has changed. The fact that Hizbollah was not destroyed by the IDF demonstrates the new truth of fourth generation warfare. Willing fighters, using low tech weaponary, can stall out a modern military force that is not willing to sacrifice its fighters. The Taliban is also making life hell for the occupiers, for the same reasons.
Unless you have a stomach for genocide, this will not be resolved by military force.
Maybe more to the point, the world has changed. The fact that Hizbollah was not destroyed by the IDF demonstrates the new truth of fourth generation warfare. Willing fighters, using low tech weaponary, can stall out a modern military force that is not willing to sacrifice its fighters. The Taliban is also making life hell for the occupiers, for the same reasons.
Yes I do agree with you, and the reason for this is, as you say in your last sentence, that in a fight between adversaries with different set of values the rules of engagement will always be different.
One observation though, and that is that if one of the adversaries had been an authoritarian state then the outcome most probably would have been different. This shows that it is not only the unwillingness to sacrifice ones soldiers that often holds democratically inclined states back in warfare but also their moral and ethical codes.
I guess what I want to say is that democratic systems are not designed for the carnage of war and using the military frequently as a political tool, only to be used in defensive measures. And when guerrilla forces are elevated to the status of military “geniuses” when they do well in combat against democratic states it is more due to the self-imposed constrains of these states than the “excellent” strategical and tactical thinking of the guerrilla forces they engage.
Yep. Where’s a US Grant when you nee him.
I don’t know what you mean by; Yep. Where’s a US Grant when you nee him, but my comments were mere observations and not value based. It is true that most democracies are more constrained in war for the fact that they have other codes they abide by and I think that is the right way to go. Democracies are not designed for the carnage of war much because they have chosen another way of conducting world affairs and should not engage in war except in self defence or in some extraordinary situations like for instance WW2.
Now Israel is in an exceptional situation since it is not surrounded by like-minded political systems (democracies) and it is technically at war with most of the Arab states. That does not mean that it has a blank check to wage war, only that it sometimes find itself in situations that are quite unique in comparison to most other democratic states, something you have pointed out yourself in a comment above.
are you seriously calling for genocide?
The Israelis are taking after their neocon buds in the Bush admin. Win the battle, lost the war.
Pragmatism is not winning the day for either side.
I found more about the blockade in a Washington Post article.
After the 1973 war, Sadat addressed the Knesset with a speech about peace which led to the Camp David Accord, and the Nobel Peace Prize to Sadat and Begin.
As Sadat said decades ago, Israel has become a fait accompli, recognized by the world. He also said that “there can be no peace without the Palestinians.”
Unfortunately, nearly 30 years later Hamas has not yet joined the world, as it has not recognized the right of Israel to exist. This is how Hamas has acted, attacking Israel after Israel withdrew from Gaza.
If there is to be a political solution, if Israel is pressed to lift the siege of Gaza, what pressure will be placed on Hamas simultaneously? Who will do it?