Yes, now think about that statement.
Yes, now think about that statement.
You do realise that there’s strong evidence that Hamas was planning to launch attacks from their tunnels into Jewish communities during the Jewish New Year (late September), right?
As long as Gaza is subject to foreign control of their own borders, and a constant loss of land to Israel, Hamas is correct to continue the war, it’s the only respectable thing to do, Israel remains the strong part in this, but their slide into apartheid and possible fascism is making whatever Hamas is into the good guys.
The more powerful party carries a greater obligation.
I disagree. The proposition that the strong necessarily have an obligation to spare the weak is inconsistent with the foundational propositions of Realism, which posits that the relationship between sovereign states is amoral.
Although I see many compelling instrumental reasons for Israel to limits the scope and fury of its response, I do not believe that the inability of HAMAS to strike a death blow thereby obligates Israel to respond with any less urgency or violence.
To put it simply and bluntly, war is about inflicting pain until the other side gives up something that it holds dear. It would seem to me that forbearance on the part of Israel would merely encourage HAMAS to continue its antagonistic behavior by dialing down the cost of aggression.
Here, I am sympathetic to Luttwalk’s propositions in “Give War a Chance:” sharper wars may be shorter (and therefore more humane) because they send the most transparent signals to an enemy.
Proportional response is rooted in Christian doctrine dating back to the fifth century AD.
I have always found Just War theory to be frankly bizzare, both because it doesn’t square with the world I see before us, and because it appears to require belief in a Higher Power or universal morality to bring off its argument that we are all bound to exercise restraint.
As long as Gaza is subject to foreign control of their own borders, and a constant loss of land to Israel, Hamas is correct to continue the war, it’s the only respectable thing to do, Israel remains the strong part in this, but their slide into apartheid and possible fascism is making whatever Hamas is into the good guys.
Out of curiosity, what steps do you think Israel could take to assume moral superiority in its relationship with HAMAS? I’m eager to test the proposition in my previous post.
Panzeh
3267
I don’t think making Gaza a living hell for everyone there does harm to Hamas’s political position, really, aside from making groups like PIJ more respectable. Even if you wiped out Hamas through bombing raids, which is a ridiculous proposition, their replacement wouldn’t be a pliable Fatah, it would be Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or some ISIS offshoot, because Hamas has tried to enforce truces in the past(which involves leaning on PIJ and outright repressing smaller groups), and this has failed to bring any lasting peace with Israel.
Aleck
3268
Yeah, the problem with Desert Journeyman’s supposition is that the only way to really resolve this would be to not only wipe out Hamas, but then wipe out anyone radicalized by all the collateral damage in wiping out Hamas. Then they’d need to wipe out all the folks radicalized by the wiping out of those radicalized by the wiping out of Hamas. Then… Well, you see where this is going. I suppose the other alternative would be to completely wipe out the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank from the get go, rather than targeting Hamas. Aside from the moral repugnance of such an action, the main impact would be uniting all of Islam against Israel – exactly what Israeli policy has tried not to do for the last 40 years.
Well, suffice it to say you don’t “win” a war of occupation with a neighbor unless you completely devastate the neighbor, then occupy the crap out of them, and then rebuild the nation in a useful way (a la post WW2 Italy, Germany, and Japan, for example – and those examples seem to be fairly unique). Israel completely devastated the Palestinians – check! – destroyed what little industry there was in Gaza (and to a lesser extent, the West Bank), occupied the territories for several decades – check! – and… Oh, wait, they forgot to rebuild the nation in a useful way, since they were (understandably) focused on external threats, building their own economy, and domestic politics.
DJ’s point is echoed in an opinion piece in the Washington Post by the former Israeli ambassador to the US. It seems to have been reposted by damn near everyone in the Jewish half of my family on their facebook feeds, along with copious likes. DJ’s reading of history may differ from mine, but I honestly don’t see any sort of military solution to this conflict. It’s just way too entrenched and way past when you could solve this militarily. I think it’s likely to take at least another generation or two of difficult diplomacy, economic aid, and restraint on the part of Israel to have non-hostile Palestinian neighbors – and Israel’s leadership (as evidenced by that editorial) doesn’t seem to have much appetite for that approach these days.
I doubt you’ll find anyone here who supports Hamas. But Zionists have been treating the situation as business as usual, backed by their American cronies. They must shoulder the blame for the new rise of anti-Semitism in the world, in places where the Zionists can do nothing to protect the Jewish population.
Timex
3270
Oh sure, antisemitism totally has legitimate, rational reasons.
I mean, hell, THEY KILLED JESUS, M I RITE??
Yea, that. What the fuck, Vet? I didn’t think you were that bad. Oh well, now I know.
olaf
3272
This is one of the things that bothers me about public perception of the issue. People seem to think that in a war there should be Vegas handicapping to determine the score? Ridiculous.
This isn’t an IR theory class, this is life. We live in a culture where the strong are expected to protect the weak.
I have always found Just War theory to be frankly bizzare, both because it doesn’t square with the world I see before us, and because it appears to require belief in a Higher Power or universal morality to bring off its argument that we are all bound to exercise restraint.
Again, it’s culture. We live in a society shaped by two thousand years of Christian thought. Even the most irreligious soul is affected in some way or another. In this case, lets look at wars of conquest or aggression - we consider them wrong. Why? Why did we spend so much time and effort creating a casus belli in 2003? If we’re all realists, clean cold analytical thinkers, then why did we need a story - why did we need the justification?
It would seem to me that forbearance on the part of Israel would merely encourage HAMAS to continue its antagonistic behavior by dialing down the cost of aggression.
And increasing the costs has worked? In what respect?
I shouldn’t be surprised, given your history of distorting what I write, that you should now attempt to tar me as an anti-Semite. I am nothing of the sort. But I am sick and tired of seeing our Conservative government catering to our home-grown Zionists because they control a few ridings and have tons of influence.
Even the USA couldn’t achieve a war without collateral damage in two recent tries, how is it fair to expect Israel to?
We need the justification because the unwashed masses are stupid and think it is wrong for a country to act in the interest of its people. They needed to believe we attacked Iraq to liberate people for example, because it makes them feel like they are better than everyone else.
I know right? They should be kowtowing to the home grown Quebec nationalists who control a few ridings and have shit for influence.
As for you being an anti-semite. You already have established how much you hate everything that isn’t you, so it’s not much of a stretch.
Panzeh
3277
I don’t think anyone’s expecting war without collateral damage, but I do think the methods used cause excessive collateral damage considering Israel’s stated war aims. I do not think Israel’s war aims are the ones they say they have, though, because the most effective means of reducing rocket attacks has historically been to make truces with Hamas. I believe Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas, or at least wreck the unity government while trying to destroy Gaza so much that any political control there will have to basically accede to every Israeli demand in order to get basics like food, water, and medicine, such that it is totally dependent. The truces negotiated with Egypt seem to have been purposely designed to have Fatah agree and Hamas not, to cause a rift within the Palestinian authorities.
I believe that Netenyahu and the Israeli Right and center-right parties basically seek to eventually force the Palestinians into a settlement where they get a ‘sovereign’ state where all important functions are controlled by Israel, but any obligation to the people is basically gone(something like Bophuthatswana or Ciskei). So, in this way, the status quo of the Palestinian territory does rather suit their government. They can call it foreign territory when convenient, and Israeli territory when convenient.
CraigM
3278
We need justification the way that society has always needed justification. All that has changed is what reasons are considered acceptable. Even the Romans rejected going to war for the express purpose of ‘I just want your land’, though that was often the real cause. They still couched it in other reasons, for example deposing a friendly ruler, killing a diplomat, declaring war on an allied city, and so on.
Now what we consider acceptable causes for war has, rightly, changed. War was never this noble, fun, honorable adventure but it was possible to spin it like that in the past. With the advent of modern weapons this changed. We have a cultural aversion to all out war, an aversion gained through the blood of millions. 100 years ago today was the last time all out war was so lightly declared. We as a society learned a brutal lesson. A state acting out of naked aggression will become a pariah in the international community. Why do you think that the war on Iraq was so damaging to international opinion of the US?
War, and its consequences, are something many people wish to avoid much more strongly than in the past. To willingly decide to use war demands that those doing so do it for a justifiable reason. Internationally we are so connected now that risking economic, political, or cultural isolation for being trigger happy can have drastic consequences. So while you paint it as being placating the masses, this by no means is a bad thing. A revulsion to war, and the damage and suffering it causes, is a good thing. Anything that makes states be deliberate in avoiding this path is a good thing. There are times when war is, unfortunately, needed. War of choice though is to be avoided.
What are you basing this on? All of Israeli Settlements in Gaza were evicted during 1995 and since then no new settlements were built there. Hamas was free to use these 9 years to build Gaza. If they haven’t immediately used their new found independence to start firing rockets, they’s probably have had a harbor and an airport and whatever else they needed. Giving them slack for misusing the trust they were given by their people is disgusting.
Panzeh
3280
Israel still controls their borders, airspace, and coastal waters, keeping a blockade up of most materials that could be used for construction. If it were really independent, it would control these things.
