Though Israel makes the dubious claim that its assault on the Gaza strip last December - Operation Cast Lead - has won security from Hamas' rocket attacks, the Jewish state has left itself open to potentially more dangerous threats. With Israel flexing it's muscle and exercising increasingly brutal force on the Palestinians and widening knowledge of life in the Occupied Territories, the diplomatic security of the nation is under assault. Examining the historical causes of the West's support of the Jewish state, it shouldn't come as any surprise that Israel finds itself in a bind.
There is a school of thought that Western support for Israel was born out of the Six-Day War. On June 5, 1967, Israel launched a "pre-emptive" attack on Egypt and Syria. With the help of American supplies, the Israelis easily won the war. Though Israel's victory was never seriously in doubt, given the fact that Israel launched the war and held the upper hand militarily, there was a widespread popular perception that Israel had barely escaped destruction at the hands of aggressive Arabs. The idea of Israel as the tiny defenseless nation surrounded by hostile polities drove Western nations, especially America, to engage in strong alliances with Israel and provide much financial and military support.
This school of thought sees the close relationship between the West and Israel, at least in part, as the result of the perception of Israel as a weak nation that would be destroyed were it not for Western support. That perception looks a little more specious with every assault that Israel launches on the Palestinians and other entities, however. The iron-fist that Israel employs when dealing with the Occupied Territories also makes it difficult to see Israel as anything other than what it is - a regional super power that has the upper hand on all of its neighbors.
This poses a diplomatic crisis. As Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit points out, Israel's indiscreet and ham-fisted use of force makes Israel look increasingly like a brutal occupier to even the casual follower of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Its very legitimacy is under attack. This breeds moral outrage that threatens to undermine Israel's legitimacy among its Western allies. The threat is already a reality - the Goldstone Report, which is highly critical of Operation Cast Lead, has triggered the condemnation of Israel's operations by the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the operation has been referred to the Security Council for further review. Who's to say where this censure will go next? The change is also seen in the Obama administration's more aggressive (but no more effective, it seems) approach to the peace process. Obama and his advisers are clearly less willing to see as engaging solely in defensive violence. This has had profound effects upon Israel's diplomatic relations with America and the wider West.
More importantly, we have seen an increase in awareness of Israel's brutal occupation of Palestine. While there was once uncritical support for everything Israel did in America, even the mainstream media is beginning to question the legitimacy of its actions. What's more, many people have taken to grass-roots methods of condemning Israel. For example, boycotts of Israeli goods have caught international attention. Whether or not they are as widespread and threatening as Shavit makes them seem is another question, but one thing is clear - these actions mark the condemnation of Israeli actions by a growing number of people.
All of this is because of Israel's indiscriminate exercise of force. The perception of Israel as vulnerable held the West in steady alliance with the Jewish state, but now that perception is becoming untenable as Israel has consistently flexed its muscles throughout the past decade. These shows of force have revealed the Israeli occupation for what it is - the brutal and unjust oppression of one people by a much stronger nation. The world is reacting accordingly.
"Indiscriminate?" "Brutal?" "Occupier?" "Superpower?"
"Indiscriminate exercise of force?" - In what sense is it indiscriminate if it responds directly to external aggression, and focuses as much as possible on the sources of that aggression, i.e militants who fire rockets, with the narrow and stated aim of self-defense. Here you will respond that the force is not focused on these sources, but rather "indiscriminately" applied to every sector of Palestianian society, which is the thrust of the human rights reports you cite. This critique is wrong, but also uncritical. As Richard Bernstein, the founder of Human Rights Watch, recently argued in a NYTimes Column - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html - criticisms of Israeli defense tactics by the UN and Human Rights Watch are tenuous - I would add, tendentious.
As Bernstein says, these criticisms pay no attention to motive, which are important factors in human rights judgments. Israel's stated motive is self-defense. You may find this deceptive, and believe that other motives are at play, but it is still significant when the stated aims of its targets, militant groups like hamas, go beyond self-defense to the offensive aim of abolishing Israel. From the standpoint of human rights, does one of these make for a more justified use of force than the other?
Here you will claim that motives cannot substitute for behavior, and that the critical reports about Israel demonstrate that Israel acted beyond its aim of self-defense to the criminal extent that it harmed civilians and subverted human rights. There is something to this argument. Israel harmed some civilians. It was negligent in enforcing its aim. So criticism here is justified. But is this negligence sufficient grounding for your particularly harsh criticism of Israel as "brutal," "indiscriminate," and "Occupier?" Should we compare Netanyahu to Genghis Khan? Is it a "regional superpower?" This unwarranted degree of severity in your column makes it tendentious, polemical, exciting maybe, but unpersuasive, and, in this sense, unhelpful. First, assessments of Israeli's criminal targeting of civilians in the reports you cite are suspicious. No impartial observers had first-hand contemporary access to the battlefield as the alleged crimes occurred. Their claim are based on the testimony of partial witnesses. It would never fly in an objective court (the UN and its human rights council are definitely not objective courts). Second, the exceptional nature of a war context is another reason for skepticism. It is chaotic and difficult to comprehend for outsiders. This does not justify atrocities, but it means we should be especially careful in passing judgment or making broad generalizations about character of nations from the poor behavior of individuals. At the risk of being redundant, it's worth noting that the war conditions in which Israeli forces operate are particularly exceptional, because the targets consciously take shelter in areas with dense civilian presences. Does this have human rights implications? Third, "impartial" reporters like the UN and Human Rights Watch are not as impartial as they seem. The trend in the media and these groups to focus on Israeli abuses is evidence in itself. Again following Bernstein, Israel is a democratic country with a popularly-elected government and robust democratic institutions like a free press. It also has several native organizations devoted to enforcing human rights. The lack of these institutions in a country would rightfully raise eyebrows about human rights, since they are foundation of such fundamental human rights protections as the rule of law. Should we be concerned that the current fashion among "impartial" human rights observers is to give precedence to the isolated abuses in Israeli wars over the egregious fact that so many of its neighbors - some of which support those who attack Israel - deny these protections?
In short, are you criticisms fair interpretations of solid evidence, or exaggerations built off tenuous and partial reports? And wouldn't the former be more helpful to the resolving the conflict?
What reality do you live in?
Have you looked at what is going in in the Middle East in the last three decades? Israel is definitely the most powerful nation in the region. It is the only Middle Eastern nation with nuclear weapons. It has a vastly superior military, complete with advance technology. Its alliance with the US gives it opportunities that few other Middle Eastern nations have. And it has a vibrant, thriving economy. Compared to the shambling autocratic nations, dysfunctional democracies, and refugee populations that surround Israel, Israel is a superpower. No other Middle Eastern nation can even approach Israel's success and power. How is it "severe" Baileys Original to acknowledge reality?
As far as your idea that the Goldstone report is somehow dubious, you're simply wrong. Its findings align with those of B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights group that conducted its own investigation. They align with those of Human Rights Watch. They align with the findings of the European press, which investigated in Gaza once the war was over. There are eyewitness accounts by Israeli soldiers of civilians being intentionally killed and used as human shields. There is video of Israeli soldiers firing on ambulances. There is testimony from Palestinians whose families have been killed by Israeli drones (which can clearly see the difference between civilians and children sitting in a house drinking tea and Hamas combatants). Israel demolished schools, hospitals, industrial buildings, toy factories, and in general the entire Gazan infrastructure upon completing its goals and withdrawing from Gaza. Farmland was uprooted and animals were killed. It has been proved that white phosphorus was used. Is all of this dubious? Is it all to be considered biased? I don't think so. And the siege of Gaza, a land already devastated by Israel, continues.
Besides, Goldstone is a fucking Zionist - his daughter immigrated to Israel! How could Israel have asked for a more favorable person to conduct the investigation?
And if Israel was worried about being portrayed in an impartial light by the Goldstone report, they should have cooperated with the investigation. Goldstone repeatedly tried to get Israel to cooperate with the investigation, and Israel refused. Also, perhaps there would have been impartial eyewitnesses on the ground during the war if Israel had not barred journalists from the battlefield.
Nobody is arguing that Hamas isn't at fault as well, of course they are. But why can't anybody acknowledge that Israel has committed abuses too? The fact that we have to argue over this is ridiculous. Kudos to Baileys Original for writing a good article.
Indiscriminate? Brutal? Superpower? Occupier?
"Indiscriminate exercise of force?" - In what sense is it indiscriminate if it responds directly to external aggression, and focuses as much as possible on the sources of that aggression, i.e militants who fire rockets, with the narrow and stated aim of self-defense. Here you will respond that the force is not focused on these sources, but rather "indiscriminately" applied to every sector of Palestianian society, which is the thrust of the human rights reports you cite. This critique is wrong, but also uncritical. As Richard Bernstein, the founder of Human Rights Watch, recently argued in a NYTimes Column - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html - criticisms of Israeli defense tactics by the UN and Human Rights Watch are tenuous - I would add, tendentious.
As Bernstein says, these criticisms pay no attention to motive, which are important factors in human rights judgments. Israel's stated motive is self-defense. You may find this deceptive, and believe that other motives are at play, but it is still significant when the stated aims of its targets, militant groups like hamas, go beyond self-defense to the offensive aim of abolishing Israel. From the standpoint of human rights, does one of these make for a more justified use of force than the other?
Here you will claim that motives cannot substitute for behavior, and that the critical reports about Israel demonstrate that Israel acted beyond its aim of self-defense to the criminal extent that it harmed civilians and subverted human rights. There is something to this argument. Israel harmed some civilians. It was negligent in enforcing its aim. So criticism here is justified. But is this negligence sufficient grounding for your particularly harsh criticism of Israel as "brutal," "indiscriminate," and "Occupier?" Should we compare Netanyahu to Genghis Khan? Is it a "regional superpower?" This unwarranted degree of severity in your column makes it tendentious, polemical, exciting maybe, but unpersuasive, and, in this sense, unhelpful. First, assessments of Israeli's criminal targeting of civilians in the reports you cite are suspicious. No impartial observers had first-hand contemporary access to the battlefield as the alleged crimes occurred. Their claim are based on the testimony of partial witnesses. It would never fly in an objective court (the UN and its human rights council are definitely not objective courts). Second, the exceptional nature of a war context is another reason for skepticism. It is chaotic and difficult to comprehend for outsiders. This does not justify atrocities, but it means we should be especially careful in passing judgment or making broad generalizations about character of nations from the poor behavior of individuals. At the risk of being redundant, it's worth noting that the war conditions in which Israeli forces operate are particularly exceptional, because the targets consciously take shelter in areas with dense civilian presences. Does this have human rights implications? Third, "impartial" reporters like the UN and Human Rights Watch are not as impartial as they seem. The trend in the media and these groups to focus on Israeli abuses is evidence in itself. Again following Bernstein, Israel is a democratic country with a popularly-elected government and robust democratic institutions like a free press. It also has several native organizations devoted to enforcing human rights. The lack of these institutions in a country would rightfully raise eyebrows about human rights, since they are foundation of such fundamental human rights protections as the rule of law. Should we be concerned that the current fashion among "impartial" human rights observers is to give precedence to the isolated abuses in Israeli wars over the egregious fact that so many of its neighbors - some of which support those who attack Israel - deny these protections?
In short, are you criticisms fair interpretations of solid evidence, or exaggerations built off tenuous and partial reports? Would the former be more helpful to the resolving the conflict?
that bernstein article is
that bernstein article is ridiculous. there's a good reason human rights organizations, especially ones based in america should focus on israel more than syria or iran. we give israel the supplies that it uses to carry out human rights abuses on palestinians. our tax dollars are being used to murder palestinian families. that's wrong, and i commend any human rights group that calls it to public attention. the same goes for any nation receiving american support or diplomatic attention that engages in human rights abuses - saudi arabia, egypt, china, etc.
also, it's not as if human rights watch doesn't go after other nations for human rights abuses. bernstein seems to think just because israel is an ally and democratic that we should ignore it's flaws. that's idiotic. hell, even israeli human rights groups condemn israel for its violence against palestinians - http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20091019_BTselem_position_on_t... - so why can't other groups? human rights abuses everywhere deserve equal attention. there should be no bias. israel shouldn't get a blank check to inflict horrid violence on the palestinians just because it's israel. no exceptions. human rights watch does good work. if people like bernstein had their way, israel's abuses would never come to light.
Misunderstandings
seem to be common in the arguments on this thread so far. The New Yorker has an article that evenhandedly presents the grievances of both sides --- http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/09/091109fa_fact_wright?curre...
Misunderstandings
seem to be common in the arguments on this thread so far. This week's New Yorker has an article that evenhandedly presents the grievances of both sides --- http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/09/091109fa_fact_wright?curre...
thank you for posting that
thank you for posting that new yorker article, it sheds light on how complicated the overall conflict is. there are deep psychological, historical, and political issues at stake here. however, when it comes to the invasion of gaza, the article seems to acknowledge that the israelis used unnecessary force and committed human rights violations with only perfunctory regard for the wellbeing of citizens. this paragraph stands out to me:
A ground invasion began on January 3rd. According to Amnesty International, some Israeli troops were encouraged to fire at “anything that moved.” A number of soldiers spoke to a human-rights group called Breaking the Silence about the behavior of Israeli forces during Operation Cast Lead. One said that his orders were “You see a house, a window? Shoot at the window. You don’t see a terrorist there? Fire at the window. . . . In urban warfare, anyone is your enemy. No innocents.” Another soldier said, “The goal was to carry out an operation with the least possible casualties for the Army, without its even asking itself what the price would be for the other side.” A military rabbi told soldiers, “No pity, God protects you, everything you do is sanctified,” and “This is a holy war.”
that's unacceptable. israel claims to be the superior moral force, but they stoop to the level of hamas when dealing with palestinian civilians. this is because arab life doesn't matter to them. to the israeli military and government, palestinians are just a mass of terrorists. elsewhere, the article mentions highly precise drones that still managed to kill civilians standing next to U.N. buses, children standing on rooftops, and entire families. israel still managed to attack U.N. buildings and the infrastructure of government and democracy in gaza. the war in gaza went above and beyond stopping rocket attacks and defending israel - it was clearly about devastating gaza completely so that the lives of palestinians there would be crushed.
The Role of the Soviet Bloc
Soon after the UN passed "Zionism is racism," the Soviet Union launched a propaganda campaign based on the allegation that Zionism was evil. In effect, the "racism" resolution provided the justification for a final reversal of Soviet policy. In 1947, the Soviets had supported Israel's establishment. They believed that, baby phat shoes as a result of Mandate policies, the Jews had become anti-British and so were on the frontlines of an anticolonial struggle. Moscow also wanted to find a point of entry into the Middle East, particularly out of renewed concern
anne klein shoesguess shoes they focused on trying to force Israel to leave what they termed "occupied territories." By identifying Israel as expansionist, colonialist, and racist, the Soviets laid the groundwork for "Zionism is racism" while also buttressing their Arab clients, who now hoped to isolate Israel and press forward with plans to destroy it.
Post new comment