Reporting and Proportionality in Gaza
Brian Doherty | January 2, 2009, 12:58pm
As the biggest news story of the week rolls on in bombs and blood, Israel maintains its ban on foreign journalists entering the Gaza Strip.
As outsider reporting on what's going on is barred, there are plenty of ways to work around conventional professional journalists these days, and the Israeli Defense Forces are using such modern-age conveniences as Twitter and YouTube to make sure its own version of events is getting out, even as they try to ensure no one else's is.
As I knew it would be, this piece I wrote back in July 2006 on Israel's then-current bombing in Lebanon and the discussions about blame and proportionality it generated is still relevant, and will probably continue to be for a sadly long time to come. For the most part, while reading that 2006 piece substitute "Gaza Strip" for "Lebanon" and "Hamas" for "Hezbollah."
MNG | January 2, 2009, 7:22pm | #
"The other side that is indifferent to attacking civilians and denies Israel's right to exist needs to be granted political rights."
You're making the same mistake over and over, I'm inclined to think you're doing it on purpose. The "other side" you are talking about includes children, women, old men, pacifists, people who have bullet holes in them from fighting Hamas. You cannot justify denying all of these people their political rights because some of them are members of Hamas.
Of course they've been denied these rights since before Hamas even existed.
And yes, of course they should be granted political rights regardless of how they feel about Israel's existence. Do you think human and political rights only apply to people who think Israel was a good idea and should exist? That's a strange philosophy I should say.
"don't think I should exist"
What is this? Are you the living embodiment of the state of Israel?
You do know that saying that the state of Israel should not exist does not necessarily mean you think the population of Israel should be killed or something.
"I'd bet they really don't want me to exist either, since their version of self defense is a hell of a lot different than what they considered it when they fought against belligerents."
Who in the world are you talking about? Am I now the living embodiment of the US? I think you'll find that I apply the same standards to my nations military actions, in fact to all nations. It's the pro-Israeli side that wants their nation to get some special attention (because, you know, the Holocaust or something).
"MNG, Palestinians are Palestinian citizens and they vote for their government."
cunny-As fluffy has eloquently argued above Israel has most certainly not given the "nation" that Palestianins are "citizens" of even the most basic autonomy. Hence their position as illgetimate occupiers.
Fluffy | January 3, 2009, 8:51am | #
MNG, my original question was, would not Fluffy's statements require him to side with al-Sadr and the like in the Iraqi insurrection. Are you claiming that Iraq, circa 2005, was autonomous with respect to the US?
While I don't want to try to single out any Iraqi political faction, I will say that there were certainly Iraqis who had the moral right to employ violence against representatives of the United States.
It's not that hard to understand, really. If you kicked down my door, "looking for arms", and then dragged me away to Abu Ghraib where Lynndie England played reindeer games with me for a few weeks, and then when you let me out [not because I was granted any due process or anything, but because you needed my cell to fuck with someone else] I got home and found that you had knocked down my house to build a security wall, and that my son had been shot because he was standing somewhere close by when an IED went off, guess what - I have the moral right to try to kill you until you go away.
You have to leave aside geopolitical issues for a moment, and the question of what nation and political leader did what when, and realize one simple fact - that when states act in certain ways towards populations subject to their rule, the members of those populations are morally entitled to resist using violence. I possess certain basic rights, and if a state violates those rights I get to kill representatives of the state to make them stop. And I don't care what problems the state has, or what series of historical events makes them think they have an excuse to violate my rights.
So if you're the Israelis and your army has seized control of the place where I live, and you try to rule me while I have no right to vote, to travel, to import or export goods, to own arms or other categories of property, to be secure in my ownership of my current property, I get to use violence to make you go away, and if you say to me, "Buh-buh-but the Holocaust, but-but-but the PLO, but-but-but suicide bombings, but-but-but the Arab states attacked us in 1948!" I don't have to give a shit about any of that. I am a human being, and you are the state that has asserted the right to control [directly or indirectly] the area where I am, and my right to resist injustice supercedes your state's circumstances and concerns.
And that also means that if I'm in Iraq, instead, and you say, "Well, we had to topple Saddam Hussein," that's great, but having toppled Saddam Hussein and made yourself the occupying power you've placed yourself in the position of the state, and I get to judge your conduct by the same standard I would use to judge any other state. And if you act in a way that violates my rights, I get to treat you as a state that is violating my rights. "But-but-but we had to topple Saddam Hussein and now there's an insurgency and there might be a civil war if we leave and we have to act this way!" Hey, talk to the hand.
MaterialMonkee | January 4, 2009, 1:55pm | #
@MNG
"One people: living on land for centuries.
Other people: No connection to the land for 20 centuries"
True true, but these where different times eh?
When the state of Israel was formed roughly 150,000 Muslims and Christians moved into the region designated Palestine.
When the state of Bangladesh was formed
approximately 20-30 million Hindus, Sihks, Buddists and Christians where forced to leave the land under threat of violence.
There was no historical link between Muslims and the land, other than a slighty higher demographic that other parts of the Indian Subcontinent.
I never hear anyone debate the legality of the creation of Bangladesh but obiviously the creation of Israel was an "injustice".
I consider myself a classical liberal but I would assume no libertarian, could support the sea and air blockade of Gaza.
However the issue here is Hamas really. They may of won an election but they soon after executed their oposition (Fatah) so their democratic credentials arn't to strong.
Hamas are a very very very right wing party who's manifesto would be illegal in the EU due to its contradiction of the european human rights act. Hamas and Hezzbollah make extremely odd bedfellows for the socialist left in the EU or what you Americans refer to liberals. But the streets of every captital in the EU are full of "we are all Hezbollah now" posters and placards.
There's are no protests about the Sri Lankan governements decleared intention to "wipe out" the Tamil Tigers. This is exactly what Isreal intend to do to Hamas but our friends of the left don't seem to care.
Maybee thats because "the left" really care about what happenes to Muslims but don't care about Hindus.
Maybe its another reason but I can't think what that could be.
kwais | January 4, 2009, 5:53pm | #
I am thinking that MNG and the New Mexican like to oftentimes come in on Joe's side of the argument.
And Joe believes (if I remember correctly) that Affirmative action is a good thing, even though it is infact racism, because it redresses past abuse.
I am guessing that TAO opposes affirmative action, because it is at one time collective punishment of whites (I for example am whitish, and did not ever segregate, have a slave, nor oppress anyone), and also probably that affirmative action gives the power to government to devide people in groups, instead of individually.
I am guessing that you and joe support affirmative action, because you judge the harm to be small, and the good that it does overrides the small imorality of it.
I oppose affirmative action because I believe that government shouldn't decide how you are treated based on race. I also oppose it because I believe that it is ultimately counter productive.
I follow that line of logic with the Palestinian, Israeli conflict also. I think that Isreal while in charge of the land and its inhabitants should treat all equally whether Jewish, Moslem, Israeli, or Palestinian. And that what a religious book says, or where you ancestors come from is irrelevant.
I think that puts me in the same area as Fluffy, even though he thinks I am a bigot.
joe | January 4, 2009, 7:06pm | #
MM,
So, that leaves 25% civilian deaths. We're well into the three figures now. Women, children, old men.
If the Israeli's could magically only kill Hamas would that be OK? Fine with me. Have I ever said otherwise? Did you ever see me complain about Israel's assassinations of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders?
Bearing in mind that Israelis are being killed There were less than 10 Israelis killed by these rockets in the past year. Certainly, this is a justification for Israel to take action, as they were during the cat and mouse "cease fire."
Bear something else in mind: a great deal MORE Israelis, including a great deal MORE Israeli civilians, have been killed since Israel launched this military assault - just as, two years ago, the military assault they launched on Hezbollah greatly increased the number of Israelis killed.
It's frustrating to see this same mistake made over and over - the conflation of "doing something" with protecting the well-being of Israeli civilians. It's frustrating watching people who don't ask "Is bombing and invading Gaza to get Hamas a good idea?" because they think that military action is, by definition, always a good idea. It was frustrating watching my own country blunder along that path in 2003, it was frustrating watching Israel blunder along it in Lebanon in 2006, and now it's happening again.
Sometimes, the Dow Jones goes down. Sometimes, housing values decline. Sometimes, military adventures go badly, and fail, and make things worse. It's not just a question of "Do you want to do awesome, or do nothing?"
Ebeneezer Scrooge | January 4, 2009, 8:31pm | #
the discussions about blame and proportionality it generated is still relevant, and will probably continue to be for a sadly long time to come
I haven't read through all the comments because I just couldn't take it. All this apparent fog about who's to blame for what, and who is or isn't justified in doing what, really isn't hard to see through.
Warning: some of the metaphysical wimps here are going to have a nervous breakdown when they hear the answers.
The world was not made for the comfort and well being of humans, plain and simple. The "fog" surrounding this whole issue -- if in fact there is any -- comes from the minds of the many who have, since the beginning of time, wished that the world isn't the way it really is.
Take a look at how monkeys treat each other in the wild. They beat each other, they'll take each other's food, they're rude to each other. They may not often kill each other, but that's in large part because it's not as easy for monkeys to do.
Look now at what goes on in the Middle East. It's the same thing. Turf wars between gangs and mobs, everybody fighting everybody to see who gets to walk around with their tail raised up behind them. If you raise
your tail, you're inviting anyone and everyone to come beat on your ass.
This is Nature. It is what Man is given in life, it's all that he has to start out with. Read history and you'll find that most of the globe, throughout most of time, has not been much different from what you see going on in the Middle East today.
If we want to do any assigning, we have no choice but to lay The Ultimate Blame on God (if you believe in one) who made the world what it is. Men can believe whatever they like, come up with the grandest philosophies, learn the greatest of truths. But changing
the way the world is, is entirely beyond Man's capacities.
Ultimately no one but God is to blame in the Middle East. Once the wheels start turning people simply do what they do because, they are what they are.
The End of the question of blame. It's simple metaphysics. Life is what it is, no more and no less.
In Nature, the whole concept of Good and Evil exists only in the most rudimentary of forms. It amounts to little more than what keeps you alive, and what doesn't. It is true that these conditions are far from ideal for human beings, yet this is all that Nature gives us to start with.
But Man has the capacity to build things that are not given by Nature. He can build an environment where the rules are different. Call it a House, A Tiny Bubble, A Nation-State, whatever. Within the Bubble we can set up our own rules, and this is the realm that our philosophies and our ethical theories live within.
Once a Bubble has been created, we can justifiably argue about the quality of what's inside. But what we must never forget is that it is a Bubble, and the fact that we've built it has not changed Nature as it exists outside.
Nothing outside has changed. Our Bubbles do no revamp metaphysics, and they never will.
The fact that nothing outside has changed, is the first thing that people born inside Bubbles tend to forget. Or more likely, they never learn it. Hence the apparent "fog".
Whether anyone likes it or not, there are boundaries to our philosophical and especially our moral theories and standards. Those boundaries are the Bubbles that we build ourselves to live in. And when two Bubbles collide, as they so often do, the laws of Nature are once again predominant.
Wars are going to happen. Deal with it.
The Geneva Convention may be an orgasm for pacifists and others who wish the world wasn't so. And if two colliding Bubbles contain similar enough moral rules, then they may be able to fight wars according to something like the Geneva Convention. But if a nation outside Western Europe and the US gets involved, you can bet the Geneva Convention is more or less going by the way side. We've already discussed the reason why.
Still,
if I was an Alexander I myself, I would endeavor to more or less follow the Geneva Convention to the extent I could. Simply out of preference for a civilized order, over and above what Nature gives us. Yet if effectiveness in war demanded, I would violate it in a heart beat. Especially if I thought doing so would save lives and/or reduce destruction in the long run. Again, out of a preference for man-made law and order over Nature.
Nothing in the Middle East is going to settle down until somebody pulls an Alexander the Great stunt. Alexander was a big strong monkey who looked around at all the fighting and said, "Hey, this is stupid. I'm going to fight everybody, and win." And he did.
Then Alexander set up his own Bubble. But only after he knocked everybody's heads together and subdued the masses.
What actions are or are not justified, in the process of doing what must be done to build a Bubble? I'd argue, most anything that's effective is justified. Because in most cases throughout history, even Bubbles with bad contents are better than what we get from Nature.
Law, order, and justice are not given to us by Nature. They are imposed over top of Nature, by Man. But no ruler can impose beyond the boundaries of the realm he effectively rules over.
Of course if an Alexander the Great rose up and attempted to conquer the Middle East, the UN would probably stop him (if it could). There was a budding Alexander in Egypt, somewhere back around 1850 (sorry, I forget his name by now). He was on the road to building an effective state in the Middle East, and was knocking the crap out of the decaying Ottomans. But France, England, and I forget who else stepped in and cut him down to size.
Cutting him down was, I contend, not a good thing. The Middle East today might well be far better for it if he had succeeded. Every nation in history, every successful Bubble that was built, was built atop bloodshed and what we Westerners today would consider atrocities.
Now you know why I'm no fan of the UN. Or any other European philosophy in the realm of international relations.
Given all of this, we may still have preferences for one side or another in the current Middle East situation. Contrary to the persistent beat of the MSM, I have to side with the Israelis.
You could argue that Israel should not exist, because the Arabs were there first. I understand well the case to be made here, but by now it's a moot point. The existence of Israel is a fiat accompli, and arguing that it should not now exist is tantamount to arguing that no nation in all of history had the right to exist. For surely, none of them was given to us by Nature.
In Nature the rules are simple: what is, is, and what is not, isn't.
I side with the Israelis because they are the only ones in the Middle East who've managed to build an actual, civilized nation. As opposed to a third world hell hole ruled by tyrants and/or terrorists. This is what's going on, and the failure of the Arab states is most certainly
not the Israelis' fault.
It is not the Israelis who station their soldiers amongst civilians. It's not the Israelis who are using women, children, and the elderly as human shields for their military forces. And it's not the Israelis who are carrying out suicide bombings of innocent civilians. The Israelis hit civilians only because their opponents give them no other options when fighting back.
What I see inside the Israeli Bubble is far superior to anything I see going inside any of their neighbor's Bubbles. And
this fact is really not Israel's fault.
is still relevant, and will probably continue to be for a sadly long time to come.
It will continue to be relevant for a long time to come, because our intelligentsia here in the West are a bunch of idiots and to prove it they've created the UN. The UN will stomp out any Alexander who attempts to rise up and put an end to the Middle East mess.
The Middle East will not change until, first, the West has finally grown so weak that it can no longer interfere in the natural course of events in the Middle East, and second, a new Alexander has risen and conquers the playground.
Note that Alexanders are not always much better to start with than Saddam Hussein. But the empires they create may grow into better creatures as they age. In fact, this has been the real story of all real nations in history. Few to none of them were born with great moral stature right out of the gate.
MNG | January 5, 2009, 9:00am | #
Fluffy
There's a reason why TAO doesn't just come out and say "I've always said Israel is committing horribly immoral acts in regards to the occupation of Palestine" in response to your question, and one as to why he doesn't just quote himself directly from upthread. Instead he links, hoping noone will take the time to click. But it only takes a second or two to look over every one of his posts on this thread. So what does the tape speak of when we run it?
1/3 7:47 he says "You'll note that I've generally been critical of Israel's actions, in that they'll likely be ineffective."
So he can't say it's wrong because the Palestinians rights are violated, but he can say it's not very effective from Israel's point of view. I point that out to him btw at 8:15 (I'm always trying to help the guy) but he cannot or will not answer even with help.
@8:21 After I helped him as mentioned supra we get this exchange (first part my help, then his response):
"Since the only thing you can find wrong with the actions is that they are "not effective" my assessment is shown all the more to be correct.
That depends. Is this a war or is it not a war?"
You see fluffy, he unequivocally answered whether Israeli Occupation policies or the current actions are morally wrong. He says "it depends!"
Later the next day @6:55 he says "For what it's worth, I am not totally outraged like most individuals are at the Israeli response. I understand it, but I think that it is a total mistake."
Glad he cleared his opposition to Israeli practices up there, eh?
So fluffy it's understandable how you or anyone else can think TAO cannot condemn certain Israeli actions as morally (as apart from practically) wrong. All he had or has to do is just say it: Israel's embargo is morally wrong, it's occupation of the Palestinians as a whole people denying them the right to vote, run for office (he actually thought they could do that until I showed him otherwise the other day, but then when would the right wing rags he reads ever tell him otherwise) is morally wrong.
In saying it he would show some libertarian principles. But he cannot and will not. Why not become the natural question for anyone. And him convincing himself that my asking it is due to an obsession with him I guess protects him from seeing how glaring that ommission is to ANYONE.
In fairness, I think it's actually tough for him. We're talking about a man who confesses his admiration for Rush Limbaugh, who consistently links to right wing think tanks when searching for empirical facts. And those kind of sources will never foster a principled ideology. He's young, and as he's humiliated in relying on such nonsense he will eventually branch out beyond such sources and as he's quite bright we'll hopefully see a bright young man with more defensible principles.
But Rush Limbaugh will sadly become less impressive to him when that happens. It's a fair trade I think.
MNG | January 6, 2009, 7:58am | #
Wow, TAO, wow.
Look, as fluffy said, you're just using this "you're obsessed with me" stuff to continue to not answer the question and face the situation you've got caught in.
In several instances you've loudly and proudly denounced what could be seen as collective punishment of a group effecting a fairly limited area of freedom (anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. restricting associational freedom). But in a situation where there is a collective punishment of a group on a fairly wide set of freedoms (the occupation and embargo of the OPT restricting freedom of movement, contract, and association) you are not only silent, but when explicitly called upon, not just by me whom you can pout and stamp your feet over as just 'messing with you', but others like fluffy who certainly have no beef with you, you cannot muster up a moral (as opposed to practical) objection to the latter.
Now fluffy might want to give you the benefit of the doubt and just conclude that you simply don't have an answer, a reading which I guess could be true considering you didn't know something as basic to this debate as that the residents in the Occupied Territories cannot vote or run for office in the Knesset (and so perhaps this is why you've never denounced it and you're embarrassed, a common enough trait in the young, but surely you knew what an embargo is and that one is in effect in the OPT).
But I've seen and marked your persistent nastiness, you're admiration of cowardly thugs like Limbaugh, your cavalier disregard for human life, your bullying of honest guys like Lamar, etc. I think you have an answer, one that does make your seemingly highly anomalous views consistent, and it's this:
Collective punishment is wrong. When it effects my tribe (white people).
This could explain the (certainly you can see) somewhat strikingly strange of a libertarian crying foul, foul, loudly foul about a relatively minor and limited collective punishment that fell on his tribe, but not being able to bring himself, even when called upon, to condemn collective punishment that falls on some darker skinned tribe across the world.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
