I find it interesting that during the brokered cease-fire, Palestinians stopped launching rockets but Israel didn't stop the expansion of its settlements. I'm not implying a causal relationship--West-Bank settlements certainly weren't the proximate cause of the breakdown in Gaza. It says something about good faith, though, no? Anyway, one does wonder what Israel's endgame is in all of this. I mean, short of eradicating the Palestinian people, an option they don't have the stomach for (yet), what benefit do they hope to gain? Neither air power nor ground assaults, up to and including physical occupation, stop bombings and rocket launches. Cf. Iraq, Afghanistan. And if the plan is to topple the Hamas pseudogovernment in the Gaza Strip, who is to replace them? Clearly Fatah is in no position to step in.
A guy like Gerson is actually right to note that proportionality in warfare is an odd concept and that the mere taking of life for life is just revenge. The fact he conveniently elides, however, is that none of the goals in his fantasia are achievable through war. Israel is just engaging in some good, old-fashioned collective punishment. You don't even have to compare them to the you-know-whos. In that part of the world, there's plenty of older precedent. Everyone's a damn Roman these days.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Herod Archelaus
Labels:
Israel,
Palestine,
The Wages of Empire
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
At this point I'm confused, I admit, about the difference between 'collective punishment v. guerilla attacks' and 'war.' Doesn't this always happen when one party goes with the hit and run approach? I mean, why go back to Titus when you have Westmoreland?
The ethical arguments are so tired they aren't even ethical arguments anymore. More like ritual genuflections, just so many Pater Nosters. The fact that people have been taking this crap so seriously for the last eight years says more about constitutive American amnesia and its low-quality intellectuals than anything real.
The frustration that Hamas had during the truce was that Israel never fulfilled it's end of the agreement -- namely to open the crossings to what passed for normal flow of goods and people in the period prior to the failed Fatah coup against Hamas in Gaza. Hamas always said that they wanted the truce to extend to the West Bank at a future date, but the Israeli government was never willing to discuss this, since it would legitimate Hamas' position as the elected government of the Palestinian Authority.
Israel unilaterally violated the truce with Hamas on November 4 as part of its long-planned campaign to destroy all civil institutions in Gaza and to finish the destruction of Gaza's infrastructure. Their immediate aim is clearly to make it impossible for any government to function in the Strip, and long term they seem to intend to render the people of Gaza even more desperate, malnourished and ill than they are already.
You reckon all this could be to get Iran all uppity and worked up so's Isreel could then bomb the shit out of Teeran?
Everything's amusing you to you Ioz? A little good old fashioned collective punishment of death and destruction and dropping bombs on civilians?
You're morally bankrupt, bub.
If 'political capital' is an iffy metaphor, then 'moral capital' has got to be the stupidest idea since illuminated rooftop reindeer. What does 'morally bankrupt' even mean? That a person has exhausted his finite supply of knowledge of the Good and now stumbles through life with no ability to prioritize?
IOZ is too big to fail. i propose a ten billion ethical unit moral bailout.
Always buy your morals wholesale.
Where does he laugh about it or make fun of it, anon 1:59? What should he write, "Oh god, I'm sobbing as I type!" If all the poli-bloggers each typed up a really outraged blog post about it, would Israel calm the fuck down?
Idiot.
"Israel is just engaging in some good, old-fashioned collective punishment." Israel is sooo professional victim. What's next----a series of plagues from its bio-labs?
I would guess that this is an Iron Law of Institutions thing; the party in power is doing this to Look Tough and enhance their own electoral prospects, regardless of the actual national interest of Israel, whatever that is.
The Iron Law of Institutions applies to Hamas, too. Firing rockets into Israel helps to bolster their credibility as the sole legitimate representation of resistance to the Israeli occupation, and they don't seem to be too concerned about how many Palestinians die in the process.
Nice phallus.
yes steveb, every rocket that lands wherever it does in israeli has a Hamas Inc. logo slightly charred on the attendant shrapnel but still highly recognizable and backed by the consent of a committee of trrrrsts
*israeli territory
incgnfct:
I suppose you're being sarcastic, but I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.
Probably that, unlike the shit falling on Gaza, it does not say "Made in the USA".
Um, the Palestinians stopped launching AS MANY rockets, but they were still flying out of Gaza every month. That's one of the reasons the cease fire broke down.
Also, Gaza != West Bank.
Finally, rockets much worse than settlements.
God, why are all you idiots so up on a donkey about how fucking bad Israel is, as if the people who've hated them for decades and kill them indiscriminately are any better.
IT'S TOTALLY FUCKED. EVERYONE'S STUPID.
God, why are all you idiots so up on a donkey about how fucking bad Israel is, as if the people who've hated them for decades and kill them indiscriminately are any better
Because the body count says different?
Hi Nutella,
In answer to your question, I think there are three reasons why (some) people focus on Israel.
(1) A hypothesis about causation. If Palestinians' rights weren't being violated--meaning practically, if they weren't being forced to live in squalor with high rates of malnutrition--by Israelit security and economic policy, then they wouldn't be lobbing rockets. Partisans of Israel tend to respond that they would be lobbing rockets betcause Hamas/Arabs are intrinsically anti-Semitic, i.e. they "want to kill Jews." I guess one just has to decide which model is more plausible. They're not mutually exclusive, but the causal inference in the first case implies that Israel has the power to alter the situation. Leading us to...
(2) Power. While it is certainly true that both a king an a pauper can both be morally corrupt, most people agree that a corrupt king is worse. When rulers sinned in classical literature, their divine punishment was visited on the whole city. By inference this should mean that the more powerful party to a conflict has greater ability, thus responsibility to resolve it. Israel lifting its siege and abandoning its settlement policy would significantly increase the caloric intake of the Palestinian poulation (those west bank settlements are generally built on Palestinian farmland). Plausible argument to be made that this would have an impact on rocket launches. Consider for example that they are manufactured in foundries that might otherwise be turning out actual industrial goods or consumer products if Gaza's economy weren't destroyed by the Israeli siege.
(3) Israel was created by the suffrance of the international community, in part because the Jews successfully argued that a great wrong had been done to them by European powers (who bankrolled the first few decades of its existence). This is an extraordinary circumstance for the creation of a state, and while any lasting responsibility to the rule of law between nations is a bit ambiguous, it does seem suggestive that the very transnational ethical system that Zionists appealed to back when it suited their interests has been systematically ignored or even scoffed at by them since 1967. This strikes some people as hypocritical.
Um, the Palestinians stopped launching AS MANY rockets, but they were still flying out of Gaza every month. That's one of the reasons the cease fire broke down.
Here's a bar graph. From the Israeli Foreign Ministry, no less! 1 rocket in July, eight in August, 1 in September, 2 in October. The Israelis completely sealed off Gaza in November, and that's when the rocket attacks resumed.
Finally, rockets much worse than settlements.
If the Palestinians had the ability to build settlements in downtown Tel Aviv., I'm sure they would. We all do what we can. And how do rockets compare with US-made bunker busters?
So first, NutzonToast is all like "Israel is just defending itself, you can't reason with those people," and then he's like "Oh fuggidall, abandon all hope, everybody sucks equally!" I look forward to the third part in this series.
Aaron,
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Unfortunately, the link within your name takes me to a "blogger cannot be displayed" page.
Well, we're all Romans, except for the Palestinians. They're sicarii.
God, why are all you idiots so up on a donkey about how fucking bad Israel is, as if the people who've hated them for decades and kill them indiscriminately are any better.
What Aaron said.
If I may add something, this has nothing to do with how bad people are, but rather what's the overall situation, i.e. a nuclear-armed-to-the-teeth country preying on a stateless-defenseless population. Rockets may scare the Israelis, but this is nothing compared to what Palestinians get.
When you talk about bad people, you give in to the false idea of original sin, as Aaron explained in his first reason.
People are only as good as the system lets them be. If my people is choked and killed and their land is stolen, then you gotta expect me to act like a motherfucker. If you support me with billions every year, and never offer a word of criticism about what I do, then I'm going to feel like I can do anything I want.
A holocaust as remuneration for a prior holocaust is still a holocaust. Insert "genocide" for "a holocaust" if you believe in Godwin's Law.
Anyway, one does wonder what Israel's endgame is in all of this.
IIRC at least one member of the ruling class stated publicly and for attribution that the reason -- for which I think we can read "justification" without any loss -- was to make potential enemies feel (more) fear about attacking Israel, because they didn't anymore, or at least didn't feel enough, which in turn required, or at least allowed, a deliberately disproportionate response.
One may argue with the proposition both morally and practically, but it certainly seems consistent with their actions and other statements, and I haven't seen any recent contradictory evidence. It's also consistent with the current confused short-term political situation in Israel, and with Ehud Barak's political ambitions, and with the attitudes of the right-wing camp in the longer-term battle for Israeli political identiy, AND with Israeli swagger, which makes American swagger look like Pee Wee Herman and fuels an ample reservoir of political support.
Gerson: No nation can tolerate a portion of its people living in the conditions of the London Blitz -- listening for sirens, sleeping in bomb shelters and separated from death only by the randomness of a Qassam missile's flight. And no group aspiring to nationhood, such as Hamas, can be exempt from the rules of sovereignty, morality and civilization, which, at the very least, forbid routine murder attempts against your neighbors.
If you were to replace the word "Hamas" with the word "Isreal" in that sentence, it would make just as much sense.
I wish that mattered.
Power. While it is certainly true that both a king an a pauper can both be morally corrupt, most people agree that a corrupt king is worse.
The Aztec justice system had harsher penalties for noblemen then for commoners. A crime that would merit a flogging for a peasant would merit the death penalty for a prince.
There's another issue, which is everybody already fucking knows about the atrocities Hamas perpetrates. People already know about them, and politicians and the news media do everything they can to convince us that Palestinians are vile murderers and Isrealis are helpless victims and that's all there is to it.
Everybody in America already knows Hamas are a bunch of dicks.
White Phosphorous in any of its various militarized forms is nasty stuff. In a collateral-damage heavy environment like, oh, Gaza, which resembles a Japanese subway for the amount of lebensraum available, using it is kind of unneccesary. In fact, the only reason to use it is to increase the pain of the collaterally damaged.
The Geneva Conventions are based on the idea of imposing proportionality on war. Since us humans seem to spend an inordinate amount of time at war, the idea of proportionality goes back a couple of weeks. I'm actually thinking of the Church's attempt to calm things down during feudal times by imposing the Peace and Treaty of God...of course, when that didn't work, Urban came up with the Crusades to let the boys blow off some steam, kill some heretics, Jews and Ayrabs, and pick up some revenue.
Anyway, having used WP to blow a few things up, the pictures I'm seeing are White Phosphorous. Done deal...if flame weapons like naplam and WP are violations of the conventions, then the Isrealis are bitchslapping the Geneva Convention and all the stuff about War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity that supposedly leads to Never Again.
But, yeah, I agree with IOZ's last point completely and unreservedly...in that part of the world, everybody's a Roman. Hell, the Roman approach is probably more humane than what these people would all do to each other. The Romans were motivated by greed, but with the exception of Carthage, just wanted everybody to get along. By doing what they wanted them to do...Actually, I'm thinking about the Alien's line in Independence Day: We want you to die. So Isreal is Rome, and Hamas-Hezbollah are Space Aliens...my head hurts.
the Isrealis are bitchslapping the Geneva Convention and all the stuff about War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity that supposedly leads to Never Again.
Didn't you hear? "Never Again" stands for "Never Again let a national socialist government in Germany commit a Jewish genocide, in 1938."
See, I really thought that Israel was the Herodians. You know, all the politicking, the dubious foundation (Herod's lineage vs. Israel's secular origins), oh, and the patronage of the mightiest empire of the day. Truman and Augustus don't have too many parallels, so there it is.
Post a Comment