Oxfam: Israeli Collective Punishment Policy May Create Water Crisis In Gaza
| December 2nd, 2007From Oxfam:
Humanitarian agency Oxfam International today said there is an increasing risk to public health in Gaza as water and sanitation services begin to buckle under the strain of Israel’s restrictions on fuel, vital maintenance goods and spare parts into Gaza.
According to Oxfam International’s partner the Coastal Municipalities Water Utilities (CMWU) 15% of Gaza’s population – 225,000 people – is not receiving an adequate amount of drinking water due to the lack of diesel.
Oxfam is also worried at the latest reports of Israel’s Attorney General’s Office giving approval to its new Defense Ministry’s plan to reduce the quantity of electricity delivered to the Gaza Strip. This decision comes on top of Israel’s fuel reductions since 28 October 2007, which are having an immediate impact on the water and wastewater systems in the Gaza Strip.
According to Oxfam International Executive Director Jeremy Hobbs:
“There has to be an immediate resumption of fuel supplies to Gaza if we are to avoid a public health crisis. Access to clean water is a fundamental human right and must not be used as a tool to collectively punish the population of Gaza. As international efforts increase to breathe new life into progress towards peace, the international community is ignoring Gaza’s plight, allowing it to slip further into a crisis. Ordinary civilians in Gaza are being punished for crimes they have not committed, in clear violation of international humanitarian law. This illegal policy of collective punishment must stop at once.”
Israel’s Supreme Court recently placed a temporary injunction against Israel cutting back Gaza’s electricity supply, which is good. But the disaster caused by lack of fuel and other supplies continues unabated.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
I find it fascinating that there can be a group in power in gaza, possessed of a considerable number of weapons, with an extraordinary amount of anti-Israeli sentiment (up to and including the desire to kill many citizens,) who has expressed their goals and managed to actually do so… and that they can get court protection. That’s democracy at work, and a nice change from a lot of the surrounding countries.
The collective punishment issue is troubling, though. I never know how to judge it in the long run. Say that this results in a peace agreement being signed–will it have been worth it? How many deaths would be justified by peace? Who makes that call?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Can anyone who objects to collective punishment please come up with a better alternative?
We are talking about the non-stop bombardment of Israeli civilians in villages and towns within Israel proper - daily, for months.
Exactly what defensive actions taken by Israel *would* you support?
When Israel pioneers the techniques of “targeted assassinations” to take out the terrorist henchmen, the press covers this up with misleading headlines about “Israeli Strikes in Palestinian Residential Areas”, without giving the telling details - that the terrorists purposely hide in such areas, and that Israel is the only army in the world that took pains to develop the techniques for pinpoint strikes (the Americans came to Israel to learn how to do this).
So: what would YOU do if your civilians were being bombarded by missiles launched from civilian areas by highly mobile bands of terrorists - terrorists that were elected by a large majority of the Palestinian people, and seem to still have much support among those people?
This comment was written by Ben-David.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:24 am
It’s probably worth mentioning that the US uses very similar tactics in our wars — including notably the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure in Serbia during the ‘99 war, and the US-backed UN sanctions on Iraq from 1991 to 2003. In both cases, the harm to civilians was very substantial.
It’s unfortunately very hard to fight a war without hurting bystanders. Avoiding war at all costs is a hard sell in Israel — the population is all too aware that “all costs” can be very expensive when your opponent’s goal is “death to the Jews”. (If you think that’s an exaggeration, I invite you to read the Hamas charter, particularly Article 7.)
This comment was written by NotACookie.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:25 am
Sure. A better alternative to inflicting collective punishment, is NOT inflicting collective punishment. In other words, take any situation you like involving collective punishment, and remove the collective punishment, and it will be a better situation.
Exactly what is depriving these folks of clean water supposed to accomplish? Is the theory that if they get really thirsty, then folks who are angry at the Israelis will decide that they aren’t angry any more? Or that they’ll be so afraid of dying of dehydration that they will decide to be docile and cooperative? I don’t get it.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:27 am
The court acted to protect the vast, vast majority of people in Gaza who are not terrorist, nor criminals, nor wannabe murderers.
It’s not democracy. Democracy is when people get to vote for their rulers. In effect, Israel is the government ruling Gaza (they decide if Gaza gets electricity, for example); the people living in Gaza, however, do not get the opportunity to vote for the people who decide if they have electricity or not; who decide what roads they can or cannot drive on; who have the ability to confiscate land and destroy homes without a trial; etc..
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:28 am
And I objected bitterly in both cases, especially the Iraq case. It was wrong of us to do that, and it’s wrong of Israel to do that, too.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:40 am
I’m aware that many people in the US and elsewhere protested the Kosovo war. However, the US and NATO conducted it nonetheless — and it’s very much too late to unset the precedent.
A full discussion of the Kosovo war would probably be out of scope, but I do want to make one point. We intervened to stop what was arguably an incipient genocide. There’s no easy way to coerce a government other than collective punishment of the population, and saying “don’t coerce governments by punishing their populations” is just a roundabout way of saying “don’t fight” — and that’s a hard sell when the alternative is ethnic cleansing and mass murder.
This comment was written by NotACookie.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:24 am
Ben-David writes:
If Dan is torturing Bob in order to cure cancer, I don’t have to have a “better alternative” for curing cancer in order to be able to legitimately object to Dan’s disgusting acts.
The collective punishment of Gaza will not stop missile attacks; it will not save Israeli lives. It will, however, cause Palestinians — and in particular the elderly, the sick, and the children, all of whom are especially susceptible to this kind of attack — to suffer and die.
I don’t have a magic answer to the Israel/Palestine conflict. But collective punishment is not the answer, and demanding that we must be able to wave a magic wand and make all the terrorists go away before you’ll agree that cutting off a population’s water supply is irrational and inhumane.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:27 am
“Probably”? :-P
In the case of Gaza — which is the subject of my post — the alternative to collective punishment is not ethnic cleansing and mass murder. Not every case in the word is genocide, and a rationalization for collective punishment that depends on treating all instances of collective punishment as the prevention of genocide is nonsense.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:30 am
Bjatmarr wrote:
Obviously, I agree. Thank goodness you posted, I was beginning to feel very alone in this thread. :-)
The blog Rational International made a similar argument to yours, which is all the excuse I need to quote it:
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:50 am
Mmm. The harm the Israelis are trying to prevent is having their southern cities bombarded into uninhabitability — which, while not genocide, is a serious enough threat to plausibly justify harsh responses, particularly given that a series of less harsh measures and attempts at negotiation have failed.
This comment was written by NotACookie.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:04 am
(Re)direct the Palestinian leadership’s attention to their people’s welfare, instead of to aggression.
(Re)direct the Palestinian leadership’s attention to their continued dependence on Israeli goodwill.
Undercut the terrorists’ strategic decision to exploit the restraints of Western morality - and Western distinctions between combatant and civilian - even as they themselves behave without any such moral restrictions.
Reassert that Palestinian civilians will not be left in peace if Israeli citizens are not also left in peace.
Prod Palestinian civilians to reject the reign of terror - if not on moral grounds (although liberals can keep holding their collective breath if they wish) - then on practical grounds.
All of these are perfectly reasonable strategic/moral positions by the schoolyard rules of geopolitical conflict. And Israel is defending itself in a pretty rough (and by Western standards, immoral) corner of the world.
This comment was written by Ben-David.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:15 am
I suspect that many Israelis feel differently, yes? But it may be beyond discussion and into belief .
In your quoted text, you quoted:
Correct me if I”m wrong, but the elections weren’t especially “tacit” in nature. Nor were the demonstrations.
basically, it’s just two conflicting theories.
You seem to believe that punishment will be ineffective (or at least that’s what you tacitly argue by quoting above) because it will unite the Gazans. That claim of ineffectiveness is quite important to the eventual claim that the punishment is wrong. After all, there’s obviously no point in punishing people when it doesn’t work. (while the punishment may be unjustified even if it does work, it’s much harder if not impossible to justify it if the effects are nil.)
Others seems to believe that punishment will be effective. For example, they might believe that the Palestinian population of Gaza voted for hamas with the belief taht they could simultaneously have a revolutionary anti-israel stance, moral certainty of hatred, and a good economy with relatively open border crossings. Isreal seems to be makig the point that those are two separate choices: if you want reasonable relations with your neighbor, you probably shouldn’t openly detest them. As with the other side, the eventual efficacy of the punishment is very important.
If one is especially conservative, one can justify collective punishment based on past acts. But I think that’s rare.
I personally am somewhere in the middle. I don’t like the collective punishment aspect. But I think that if it works it may be worth it in the end.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:36 am
There’s an assumption here that denying water to a population over which one has power is okay if you get what you want out of it.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:39 am
Phrasing it in general terms clouds the issue I think.
Obviously the vast majority of things you want people to do don’t justify denying them water, or killing them. But some things do, right?
For example, I don’t generally support shooting people to get them to do what I want. But if “what I want” is “stop attacking my daughter with a baseball bat” then all of a sudden that shooting seems pretty justified. So my anti-killing-people creed is not universal–it depends on the details.
But that’s an exception. I don’t think it would be accurate to classify me as “a guy who thinks it’s OK to shoot people to get them to do what he wants.”
Same here. Except that (for me at least) it’s much less clear that it’s OK to deny water to Gaza than it is to shoot that hypothetical attacker. Still, though, it’s unfair to speak of a technique of last resort as if it were used on a daily basis.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:40 am
“Obviously the vast majority of things you want people to do don’t justify denying them water, or killing them. But some things do, right?”
Really? Do you support torture of prisoners on the same grounds?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:59 am
Oh yeah:
As they did in gaza, right?
Of course they do. Their votes are indirect–what isn’t these days?–but they have an effect.
Would Gazans like electricity? They can, of course, generate it themselves. They can elect a government who will be able to negotiate the purchase of electricity. They can elect a government who will be able to raise foreign aid to help them build generators and/or purchase power, for example. It seems oh so simple to put the blame on Israel for the lack of power, right? But it is somewhat inaccurate to do so.
Reminds me of my law school course on false imprisonment: if I put you in a room and lock one door, are you really a captive? That depends on whether there’s another way out, and how plausible the “other way out” is: you dn’t have to scale a 4 story wall, but you’re expected to be able to step over a garden fence.
So is there a way out for the Gazans? Seems like there is. Israel isn’t asking for fealty and prostrated allegiance. Instead they appear to be asking for people to stop trying to kill Israelis and motivate other people to kill Israelis.
In order for this to be Israel’s fault, the options that the Gazans have to “cure” the problem have to be unacceptable or unrealistic. I.e., even if Israel is giving them what amounts to a Hobson’s choice, it’s still OK if the forced choice is morally acceptable (unless you think Israel has no standing to defend itself against that sort of thing.)
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
In order for this to be Israel’s fault, the options that the Gazans have to “cure” the problem have to be unacceptable or unrealistic.
What about the proposed option do you find acceptable? Israel’s “solution” to the situation involves 1) no right to reclaim ancestral lands, 2) continued existence (and possible expansion) of settlements, outposts, and a wall built on Palestinian territory, 3) no shared custody of Jerusalem, and 4) no assurances that innocents will not be collectively punished if lawless individuals or groups continue to attack civilians.
But that’s all beside the point. The point is that collective punishment is wrong, period, and just because you think it might get you what you want (or, if you prefer, what you have a right to) doesn’t make it right.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Bjartmarr wrote:
That isn’t right. Israel’s solution to the situation is for Hamas to stop the rocket bombardment of Israeli villages and towns. The Israeli government didn’t propose power cuts as a tool for imposing a permanent peace, they were proposed as a measure for pressuring Hamas to stop bombarding them, with a permanent settlement to be postponed until the shooting has stopped.
It can’t be that Hamas has a moral right to bombard civilians in pursuit of their goal (destroying Israel), but the Israelis have no moral right to cut electricity to achieve their goal (stopping the bombardment of southern Israel). Either both sides are entitled to fight a war by imposing penalties on civilians, or neither is. The view of the elected Palestinian leadership, whose public platform is “war to the death” seems to be that both are; in that case, Israel is within its rights to fight back.
Saying that neither side is entitled to its tactics begs the question of precisely how they are morally entitled to defend themselves against unjust aggression. The obvious answer “by following the accepted laws and customs of war” brings us right back to the fact that there’s ample precedent for the actions being taken by both sides.
This comment was written by NotACookie.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Generally, no.
Are you saying that I should stand by and watch while someone beats my daughter to death with a bat? And while you’re answering questions, have you stopped doing [insert crime here] yet?
/snark Sheesh.
Primarily the part where both sides stop killing people on the other side.
You may be right, and it may be an untenable choice. But I have a feeling you are missing my point above. To put the onus on the Israelis, the choice has to be untenable, not merely undesireable.
So for example, look at your list of options. Palestinians WANT all of them. But some things are untenable like, for example, being subjected to randomly getting kicked out of your home for a new settlement. Some things are more in the category of undesirable, like having your capital somewhere other than Jerusalem but being allowed to go there.
Saying “period” doesn’t make it any more wrong, you know. And i’ve not debate that CP is bad in general, i’m wondering whether this is an exception to the rule.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Cookie:
On your last paragraph, I’m right there with you until the “ample precedent” part. “Ample precedent” does not equate with “morally right”. It’s wrong when the USA does it, it’s wrong when Hamas does it, and it’s wrong when Israel does it.
Sailor:
I guess I’m still missing your point. You argue that “in order to put the onus on the Israelis, the choice must be untenable”. And then you point out that the choice is indeed untenable. And then you imply that the onus is not on the Israelis. The logic doesn’t add up.
As far as “period” goes, I think that you are also missing my point. Saying “period” is intended to emphasize the lack of the “…except sometimes when…” clause that you are trying to add. I get that you disagree with me, but given that I’ve got the Geneva Convention on my side, while all the pro-collective-punishment-sometimes camp has on its side is a bunch of blood-soaked lawless yahoos, I’d like to see a lot more evidence and justification before we start (continue?) trying to realize goals through CP.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
“Generally, no.
Are you saying that I should stand by and watch while someone beats my daughter to death with a bat? And while you’re answering questions, have you stopped doing [insert crime here] yet?
/snark Sheesh.”
Sailorman, you seem to have a real problem being challenged. If you actually looked at the argument that I made, maybe you’d see where I was coming from instead of dismissing me.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:05 pm
To explain further, your original baseball bat example has nothing to do with either example I brought up.
I’m talking about
*instutitional power
being used to
*inflict human rights abuses
on
*people who have no institutional power
These are related.
Now, if you used your baseball bat to defend your daughter by bashing in the head of the perp’s mother? You might be talking about something related to the example here. Particularly if you were a policeman, and your government had made it legal for you to do this while continuing to protect your own mother and child.
By the by — the problem here in terms of snark is you, not me. You need to calm down when you’re posting and consider whether the people who are established members of this community — like me and Charles — might actually have half a brain in our heads.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I missed typing a “more” modifier. That’s confusing as heck as I wrote it, sorry it’s too late to fix.
Most of the problem is that i haven’t reached my own internal conclusion about whether this particular occurrence might be justified. It seems clear to me that the answer is, well, not so clear. At least in this case. So while I don’t agree with the concept that “it is CP, therefore it is, always, improper,” I also am extremely uncomfortable with how it is working out.
Mandolin:
Your post, to which I responded, appeared to conflate the specific instance of whether this situation justifies israel’s actions, with a general accusation regarding a feeling that CP was A-OK. My reply was primarily to point out that problem.
Then you brought up torture–and would you mind explaining what on earth torture has to do with anything in this thread, or what I wrote? Because I don’t assume you’re stupid, but I’ll be damned if I can figure it out.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Torture is a human rights abuse perpetrated by an institutional power on someone who it holds helpless. Often, proponents justify it by suggesting that exceptional circumstances make it acceptable for an institutional power to contravene its treaties and perpetrate human rights abuse on helpless victims.
You’re making the pro-torture argument here, and using it on a practice similar to torture in important ways — in that you suggest that it’s okay for an institutional power (check) to deprive a disenfranchised population (check) of a basic human right (check).
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I think, Mandolin, that the disconnect is that I DON’T see the population of Gaza as disenfranchised in this instance.
If 60% of the population of Gaza were solidly hostile (say, as hostile as you are to rape) to rockets being fired from Gaza into Israel, I think a LOT fewer rockets would be fired. Not, necessarily, none–but very many fewer.
When he was removed out of the highway, all the people went on after Joab, to pursue after Sheba the son of Bichri. And he went through all the tribes of Israel unto Abel, and to Bethmaachah, and all the Berites: and they were gathered together, and went also after him. And they came and besieged him in Abel of Bethmaachah, and they cast up a bank against the city, and it stood in the trench: and all the people that were with Joab battered the wall, to throw it down. Then cried a wise woman out of the city, Hear, hear; say, I pray you, unto Joab, Come near hither, that I may speak with thee.
And when he was come near unto her, the woman said, Art thou Joab? And he answered, I am he. Then she said unto him, Hear the words of thine handmaid. And he answered, I do hear. Then she spake, saying, They were wont to speak in old time, saying, They shall surely ask counsel at Abel: and so they ended the matter. I am one of them that are peaceable and faithful in Israel: thou seekest to destroy a city and a mother in Israel: why wilt thou swallow up the inheritance of the LORD?
And Joab answered and said, Far be it, far be it from me, that I should swallow up or destroy. The matter is not so: but a man of mount Ephraim, Sheba the son of Bichri by name, hath lifted up his hand against the king, even against David: deliver him only, and I will depart from the city. And the woman said unto Joab, Behold, his head shall be thrown to thee over the wall. Then the woman went unto all the people in her wisdom. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and cast it out to Joab. And he blew a trumpet, and they retired from the city, every man to his tent. And Joab returned to Jerusalem unto the king.
For those of you that didn’t grow up with the story, Joab was David’s great general. Not a whole lot has changed in 4000 years.
This comment was written by SamChevre.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
We disagree, i think, about whether or to what degree the Gazans are helpless. (see my comments to Bjartmarr regarding untenable situations vs. unpleasant situations.) For example, the Gazans could have elected not to vote for a party who had the goal of, in essence, war with israel. They could, even now, attempt to rally against and/or vote out said party.
Is that taking away their right to democracy? I’m not sure. Certainly they can do what they want (as they did;) people voted for hamas knowing that Israel and Hamas would, shall I say, not get along. But though we should allow them their own choice, I’m not clear on how much Israel is obliged to insulate them from the consequence of their choices.
And though I haven’t settled on this myself, perhaps you have: to what degree does their helplessness matter? Does it matter at all if the Gazans could solve the problem on their own, by acting? Or is it simply true that the Israelis should not, under any circumstances, be entitled to shut off power to Gaza? Because obviously, it’s not literally impossible for the Gazans to act in a manner that will prompt Israel and/or the rest of the world to act differently towards them, right?
Also, I am not sure that the institutional-torture argument holds here, because I see the Israelis and Hamas more as warring powers than as institutional enemies. You seem to think that Israel owes Hamas the same sort of consideration as it does to the rest of the folks in and around Israel. Why do you look at this like a governmental conflict, and not as something more akin to a war?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Mandolin, your full argument was not obvious at first to me either.
No opinion on who’s being snarky.
I don’t think anyone in that area has ‘good’ options. I think all of the choices are bad. Since Israel has more power and wealth they have more options. But I still don’t think they have good options.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Incredibly rude, condescending post deleted by Ampersand. Please read the moderation policies before posting again.
This comment was written by Ben-David.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2007 at 4:02 am
Yet it is what increasingly weary Israelis actually hear and think when presented with such arguments…
The Israeli decision to restrict water/electricity to Gaza is a last, desperate attempt to restore order and protect its citizens. It comes after a long, grueling process in which Israelis thought they were making peace - and the Palis apparrently misinterpreted Israeli concessions as weakness, and continued to attack.
This policy was explicitly endorsed by the vast majority of Gazans, who elected Hamas by a landslide.
The decision to restrict water/electricity comes AFTER:
- a well-funded, decades-long attempt to partition the land - which resulted in withdrawal of Israeli military administration and almost a decade of Pali autonomy, including elections.
- continued Pali aggression throughout this “peace” process, despite Israeli concessions.
- aggression that targets Israeli civilians like no Israeli policy ever did to the Palis.
- the cynical Pali use of their own women and children as human shields for terror.
- Israel’s development and application of painstaking techniques for pinpoint strikes - demonstrating more care for Pali civilian lives than the Pali leaders themselves seem to manifest - which often resulted in the death of Israeli soldiers.
Yet a certain strain of PC thought sweeps all this context away, and insists that it’s still all those nasty Israelis’ fault.
Why? Because a static, ideological calculus has been made, and the Palis have been awarded the gold star of multi-culti victimhood. The Israelis - despite the fact that most of them are the children of refugees - have been assigned the role of the “white colonial oppressor” in this ideological drama.
And all facts that contradict this set-piece of PC wisdom are ignored.
The official “victim group” is never held responsible for its actions.
How else does a discussion of how to contain ARAB violence against ISRAELIS suddenly get spun into:
Do you see what a non-sequitir this is in relation to the previous discussion?
Gone with a wave of the rhetorical wand is all semblence of context:
- the valid connection of Jews to what they consider their “ancestral lands”
- the consistent willingness of the Israelis to compromise
- the violent upending of agreeements by the Palestinians
- the immoral targeting of Israeli civilians during a “peace process”
Especially erased are the points that contradict the PC “apartheid” scenario:
- the fact of almost 10 years of Palestinian autonomy.
- the fact that Hamas are not a splinter-group of thugs, but widely supported elected representatives carrying out just what they promised their voters.
Instead the litany of grievance is offered as the always-sufficient excuse for the atrocity du jour.
It doesn’t matter that the Palis voted to attack Israeli civlians, and are doing so with gusto despite international agreements - all that context is swept away with a reassertion of their indelible victimhood, which can never be modified, balanced, or unseated by their actual actions.
In this scheme, the Palis can never lose their halo, no matter what they do to Israelis - by the coddling rules of victimology politics, it is always someone else’s fault. They are judged by what they are - the square they occupy on the ideological playing board - rather than by their actions.
(This is the subtext of other threads here - individual blacks, women, and others find themselves valued/evaluated - and often infantilized - because of the PC victim group they belong to.)
At some point - here in the real world! - people demanding sovereignty have to be held responsible for their actions. At some point the Israelis have a right to visit upon the Palis the consequences of their choices and actions. But this is anathema to the sort of PC mindset we are talking about.
And because we Israelis have to actually deal with the real, violent fallout of enabling Pali terror - we have less and less patience for people who keep looping back to the received litany of PC Pali victimhood when the reality on the ground is very different.
We wonder exactly how these folks define Palestinian independance and sovereignty if it doesn’t include responsibility for Palestinian actions.
This comment was written by Ben-David.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2007 at 6:03 am
Suppose I know that, next week, my neighbor is going to take his gun and attempt to shoot you with it. Despite this, I take no action whatsoever to prevent this from happening. I don’t call the police. I don’t try to warn you. In fact, when he tells me about his plan to kill you, I tell him that it’s a good idea, and that he ought to go and do it.
How much responsibility do I have for the attempt that my neighbor is going to make on your life? Should I be arrested and charged with a crime? Should I be punished for my behavior, so as to serve as an example to others who would not otherwise be inclined to prevent their neighbors from making murder attempts against people they dislike?
It is extremely difficult to wage war against forces other than armies, and, to be frank, Israel has shown admirable restraint in dealing with the Palestinians. What would Stalin have done? What would Saddam Hussein have done? What would Genghis Khan have done? What would the British empire have done? What would General William Tecumseh Sherman have done?
Incidentally, according to my understanding of international law, using civilians and civilian infrastructure as a “shield” for military targets is a war crime; Hezbollah and other such groups are, apparently, rather fond of this tactic.
This comment was written by Doug S..Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Sailorman argues that the Palestinians in Gaza could generate their own electricity and/or negotiate foreign aid to pay for power plants. In an ideal world, yes.
I seem to remember that an earlier Palestinian administration negotiated with the European Union the financing and building of an international airport in Gaza with the express purpose of boosting the Palestinian economy towards self-sufficiency. Then someone came along and blew the new airport to smithereens: I seem to remember that it was the Israelis!
Then there’s the slight problem that Israel controls all entry and exit for both goods and people. Even if that control were not being exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner - which it is - it still presents the ordinary Palestinians with real obstacles to any attempt to get their economic act together and thus come up with a credible alternative to Hamas.
——-
And, Amp, you are NOT alone!
This comment was written by maureen.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2007 at 11:03 am
There is also a rather utilitarian effect in that the rockets are quite conventional steel weapons manufactured in underground machine shops–it is in Israel’s interest that Israeli electricity NOT turn the lathes in these shops, nor diesel transshipped through the Erez crossing power generators to replace Israeli electricity. In the past, Israel has directed strikes against the machine shops themselves, with some effect but never enough to stop the bombardment.
One-sided total war against a democracy is fun. Israel might be able to stop all light industry in Gaza–which is what would stop the rockets–using reprehensible means. It chooses not to for reasons associated with the core value of the protection of innocent life*. I suggest Asa Kasher’s _Military Ethics_ for Hebrew-language readers seeking the standard text on the current state of IDF praxis.
*it may be that there IS NO effective countermeasure consonant with this value, however, the “double effect” and “sliding scale” doctrines might only allow the cessation of all Israeli electricity to Gaza IF bombardment conditions in Southern Israeli cities already reached the level of harm anticipated by such a cut-off.
This comment was written by Eurosabra.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2007 at 1:24 am
They are taken for granted all over this blog:
- I can perform life-saving surgery on an infant, but if circumcision is useless or damaging, then my surgery becomes assault.
- Are black men accused of murder based on the circumstances of their actions, and their likely motives - or based on something else entirely?
- While some men may like to go to pole-dancing bars in their spare time, it’s not appropriate for a work-related event.
We can’t discuss morality without these underlying assumptions:
1. Context matters in determining an action’s moral weight.
2. People and groups are responsible for their choices and actions.
In contrast, Political Correctness declares certain groups to be victims BY DEFINITION - without any relation to actual circumstances, events, or their own actions.
These official victims classes are excused of some or all responsibility for their actions - that it, their moral stature and worthiness of support is unrelated to their actual behavior in context.
That’s what’s going on when people cherry-pick the facts to bolster the notion of Palestinian victimhood.
What happens when when put Palestinian action in context, and require Palis to accept responsibility for their actions - that is, apply a real moral judgement rather than forcing reality to match a static PC tableau?
Fortunately maureen has given us a fairly typical example of contextless pro-Pali sentiment. Let’s put the assertions in context, and see how the moral judgement shifts:
That ideal world actually existed - the power plant was built with international monies, and Israeli support.
Then it was closed due to Hamas’ corruption and continued violation of the peace:
And then there was that airport:
The airport - also built with Israel’s aggreement and international funding - was destroyed just days after the Karine-A was intercepted. A boat laden with heavy weaponry, Karine-A clearly indicated that the Palis were not working towards peaceful coexistence:
So in context, the picture of the arbitraily thuggish Israeli and the innocent, peaceloving Palestinian is replaced by something quite different.
The most telling elision in the contextless PC recitation of Palestinian victimhood is how it totally ignores the past decade of autonomy - including elections - to reassert the “original sin” of Israeli apartheid. The underlying implication - typical of all victimology politics - is that whatever the Palis do is the Israelis’ fault:
We’ll ignore for a moment the many opportunities the Palestinian people have had to appoint “credible alternatives to Hamas” - and their choice to give Hamas credibility by voting them into office.
Instead let’s put Israeli control of Pali borders in context:
- Gaza’s borders are also Israel’s borders - which Israel has a right to secure.
- We are still technically in the process of “building confidence” towards a final agreement - and the Israel had every right to insist on some control of Gaza’s borders until they knew the dispostion of the Palestinian Authority towards peace.
- Now that the Palestinians have clearly chosen continued attack across those tentative borders, Israeli is even more justified in securing them.
Once more - the international community poured millions into Industrial zones that were supposed to allow the Palis to benefit from Israeli industry while building their own.
These industrial parks were closed - because they were targeted for Palestinian terror attacks:
So: who is responsible for the thousands of Pali familes plunged into poverty by this?
Nothing up my sleeves, no tricks - all we’ve done is apply the same basic rules to Palestinian action that we apply to every other moral calculation:
- what is the context?
This comment was written by Ben-David.- people are responsible for their actions.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2007 at 2:03 am
Okay, Ben, let’s start with this.
Please give me a couple of examples of who is “Politically Correct” under this definition, and link to in-context quotes in which they explicitly declare that “certain groups” are “victims by DEFINITION - without any relation to actual circumstances” etc..
And then — since you’re presumably claiming that I and other posters here share this fictional “Politically Correct” philosophy you’re talking about — show me where I, or other posters here, have EVER said such a thing. Again, with a direct, in context quote.
If you can’t support your claims about “Political Correctness” with evidence, then please retract them.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2007 at 2:24 am
Hang on a minute, Ben-David!
I have an interest here. My taxes helped pay for that airport. I was reasonably supportive of the airport, less so of the bombing. The historian lurking in me somewhere is already fairly certain that in time the action will be seen as inappropriate and disproportionate - even by Israelis.
You are picking many of us up on individual points but ignoring the elephant in the room - that elephant knows that no amount changes to security arrangements, no amount of military action, no amount of slagging off those of us who display a passing interest in the well being of the Palestinian people will prove to be effective because none of it addresses the underlying problem. You know perfectly well what that underlying problem is and also that it has been outstanding for quite some time.
I agree that each of us is responsible for our actions. I also believe that each of us has the same responsibility in respect of groups - including nations - of which we are part. On top of that, I believe that international law should be applied with equal rigour to the powerful as to the weak and that those of us who do have the power of choice should make our choices in the light of the rest of this paragraph.
Probably makes me a nutter but there you go!
I want us to get past those on all sides who are, in effect, arguing that we can’t sort this out because the other guys are baddies. That is the language of the junior school playground and we need adults on this job.
Oh, and stop using the term sentimental to put down people who disagree with you. It does nothing to support your argument and only draws attention to the emotionally driven tone of your last piece. (Clue: not all of Gaza’s borders are borders with Israel.)
This comment was written by maureen.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Seems to me that there is a problem here not only of context, but of perspective:
1. If you see Hamas as “freedom fighters” working to end the Israeli occupation, even if you see some of their strategies, tactics and actions as extreme and counterproductive, then that makes it much easier to see any Israeli action as growing out of the occupation and therefore as victimizing, by definition;
2. If, especially from within Israel, you see Hamas as an organization one stated goal of which is the elimination of the sovereign state of Israel, then it is difficult to reconcile any action by Hamas with the desire/intent/any steps taken, on any side of the conflict, to resolve the problem of the occupation in a way that maintains Israel’s sovereignty and security, while at the same time granting the Palestinians the same sovereignty and security;
3. If you see the situation as more complex than either of the previous two positions, if not in historical terms, then at least in terms of what the reality is as it exists on the ground today, then any action taken by any side is going to be morally fraught.
Personally, I am appalled at the notion of collective punishment; as a strategy, it devastated the people of Iraq; nor did it work to change Sadam Hussein’s stance, policies, etc. At the same time, however, to the degree that Hamas sees itself as being at war with the State of Israel, with the very idea of the existence of the State of Israel, and to the degree that as far as I know–and here maybe there are people who have more information than I do–Hamas has, at best, suggested that it would be willing to negotiate an end to hostilities, but that it would never recognize Israel’s right to exist (which should lead anyone to wonder what Hamas means by “end to hostilities”), how is Israel not to respond as if it, too, is at war with Hamas, especially if Hamas is the duly elected government of Gaza?
Please do not misunderstand: I do not, on a personal level, approve of or support what Israel has done; Israel has been and is an occupying power, and it certainly is not, taking the long historical view, the wronged party (or the only wronged party) by any means. However, unless you take the position that Israel is not interested in a peaceful solution–which, if it were the case, would justify Hamas taking the position it takes–then it seems to me irresponsible not to consider Israel’s actions relative to Hamas in the context of Hamas’ stated positions regarding Israel’s very existence; and I doubt there has ever been a country that has waged a war in which it has not taken actions that were morally questionable at best.
I also want to say this: the fact that Israel is interested in peace does not mean that the proposals it has made, the positions it has taken at the bargaining table, etc. have been fair to the Palestinians; but the fact that those positions, etc. may have been unfair does not negate a desire for peace. No one goes into negotiations willing to give the other side everything it wants; nor should either side expect to get everything it wants out of a negotiation.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Just on the off chance that your elephant isn’t the same as my elephant, would you mind posting a sentence explaining what you’re referring to?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Ampersand:
I wasn’t making any claims - I was summarizing a well-known and widely used shorthand used in public discourse in the Western(ized) world.
The terms “conservative” and “libertarian” and “right” generally denote a pattern of thought that builds on Judeo-Christian notions of the unique value of the individual, and that individual’s free will. This train of thought leads to a view of government as a necessary evil, to be limited in favor of free individual action and private property.
This mindset leads to public discourse that emphasizes wide-open, rational argument and counter-argument, followed by democratic vote, to determine public policy.
The terms “liberal” and “politically correct” and “left” generally denote a pattern of thought that builds on socialist notions of class struggle and class unity, defining special interest “communities” as I described. This train of thought views government as an explicitly moral instrument for active redistribution of privilege according to the scheme of special interests.
Because individuals are primarily viewed - and ranked - as representatives of “privileged” or “disadvantaged” groups, and because the government is given heavy moral authority rather than being viewed as a necessary evil - the notion of unobtrusive government by consent of the governed matters less than the imposition of morally correct policy (one example is the imposition of gay marriage rights by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, rather than by voter referendum).
The political and social discourse that flows from the “PC” view often answers rational argument with a fundamentally emotional argument based on a sense of grievance, and imposes conformity by trying to shame people into “retracting” their opinions, well-reasoned arguments - or even facts that contradict the established pecking order of interest groups.
This elicits amused bewilderment from the “conservative” party in the exchange, who thought they were having another conversation entirely.
And that’s basically how I receive your comment.
Do you see how, instead of directly addressing the issues and arguments I put forth, you have diverted the conversation to a confrontation based on a sense of grievance - followed by an incredible demand that I retract….. what, exactly? A commonly known shorthand for describing modern political opinions?
Because it’s easier to shut down challenging opinions by saying they insult you than it is to actually engage them. A classic PC technique.
Sorry, but:
1) I cannot possible “retract” the widely current terms and opinions I have described. They’re bigger than both of us.
2) No fair reading of my post supports your sense of personal grievance or attack. Believe me - Israelis encounter the “PC” attitudes I describe often, way beyond the confines of this blog. I am writing from bitter - and sometimes tragicomic - experience.
3) I flatly reject the attempt to use that sense of grievance to avoid actually dealing with my arguments - and even get me to retract them!
4) I cite your attempt to use the lever of grievance in this way as a classic example of just the rhetoric I - and many others! - mean when we refer to “political correctness”.
This comment was written by Ben-David.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2007 at 1:09 am
“Because it’s easier to shut down challenging opinions by saying they insult you than it is to actually engage them. A classic PC technique.”
It may have escaped your attention that Ampersand is both the author of this post and a moderator here.
Your flawed attempts to summarize what you see as the positions of the various bits of the political spectrum are irrelevant to the conversation, and to Ampersand’s requests. In the future, please respect the moderation policy. If you’re incapable of doing so, you will be asked to leave.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Well, yeah. If you consider Rush Limbaugh broadcasts to be the sum total of the Westernized world.
For the rest of us, it is blindingly obvious that you are setting up what we like to call a “Straw Man”.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2007 at 2:03 am
Richard Jeffrey Newman:
Even in a multivalent and complex situation it is possible to draw moral conclusions and distinctions.
It is also necessary to draw these distinctions, if we are interested in saving lives and promoting peaceful, equable solutions.
Let’s start with these general values, by which we will evaluate the situation:
Any objections so far?
It is necessary - and possible - to analyze Israeli and Palestinian actions according to these values, and to reach a moral/strategic determination of who we consider worthy of our support, and who we wish to censure.
Now we look at actions in context, against these values. (This is what I claim many using the PC template for this issue refuse to do).
Palestinians:
Recruit young suicide bombers, glorify them, and fund them.
Indoctrinate their youth with incitement/glorification of “holy” war.
Hide among civilians as an explicit strategy.
Target civilians as an explicit strategy.
Spread propaganda denying the historical Jewish connection to Israel.
Widely proclaim their intention to “drive the Jews into the sea”.
Repeatedly break the basic term of several negotiated agreements - to stop attacking Israel and recognize its right to exist.
All this is undertaken - organized, sponsored, and funded by the PA - even in the middle of an internationally sponsored peace program that has already delivered tangible autonomy.
Israelis:
Have a long-standing peace movement that has influenced public discourse.
Have a prosperous Arab minority that enjoys full civil rights.
Conducted a largely humane occupation after winning a defensive war, and did not annex or ethnically cleanse occupied areas.
Repeatedly made painful concessions for peace.
Take great pains to avoid collateral civilian damage in their attempts to take out Palestinian attackers.
Have largely rejected the dream of a Jewish state “on both sides of the Jordan” - Menachem Begin himself invited Sadat to Jerusalem, and facilitated the current peace process. Extreme right wing parties are largely fueled by continued Arab violence - which also motivates continued Israeli presence in Palestinian-controlled areas.
———–
Please don’t explain to me how angry, sad, or disrespected the Palis feel - or about your own personal conviction to always stick up for the perceived underdog - or about the global struggle against capitalist Western colonialism - instead please tell me:
What do their ACTIONS - in the context of an internationally-brokered, heavily funded peace process - tell us about whether they are worthy of our support?
Look at these two statements:
and then we have:
My bitter, extensive experience is that many “liberal/PC” people in the world have no problem rattling off the first statement - indeed, I’ve encountered many who rush through the obligatory “even-handed” disclaimers about the Holocaust-blah-blah to get to the real meat - the damning catalog of cherry-picked factiods that “prove” the standard PC script of “colonial white oppressor” and “noble, third-world freedom-fighter”.
I don’t hear the second statement much. Why is that?
Is it because Palestinian conduct is so obviously pure, so obviously matches our values?
Or is it because political sympathies are determined by an static ideological template of victimhood, rather than a real-world moral evaluation of Palestinian action.
You don’t have to love the Israelis - and we certainly haven’t done everything right. But it’s very hard to miss the overarching trends in Israeli and Arab behavior.
Please judge BOTH sides by their actions, in context.
This comment was written by Ben-David.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2007 at 2:38 am
You’re trying to pull a switch with your long and racist list. You’re trying to use the Israeli peace movement as emblematic of Israel and the suicide bombers as emblematic of Palestinians.
If it’s fair to judge Palestinians by suicide bombers, then it’s fair to judge Israelis by settlers and the butchers who sewed Palestinian fields with poison.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2007 at 4:27 am
Ben-David writes:
What you fail to mention, Ben, is that the power plant you refer to — Gaza’s one and only power plant — was destroyed by the Israeli Air Force.
And that’s also, Sailorman, why it’s not possible to build a new power plant in Gaza, as you suggest in comment #17. No investors would be willing to risk money on a new power plant while it seems very possible that any such new plant will be bombed into wreckage within years.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2007 at 5:24 am
Mandolin:
Who has influenced Israeli policy more: the settlers or the peace movement? Israeli policy for the past 2 decades has been largely determined by the arguments of the peace camp. Even Binyamin Netanyahu is no longer talking about Israeli sovereignty from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. And Israel forcibly removed the settlers from Gaza just a year ago.
And who has influenced Palestinian policy more: the racists who would kill all Israelis, and send suicide bombers to do so, or the peace move —-Ooooopsie, there IS NO PALESTINIAN PEACE MOVEMENT! The suicide bombers ARE the Palis’ duly elected representatives.
…. and I’d be happy to receive a link to a non-Pali site corroborating the “poison fields”
This comment was written by Ben-David.canardnarrative….Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2007 at 5:35 am
Ampersand:
Why was the plant bombed?
Why did the EU shut down their subsidy of the power plant before this?
If people no longer want to fund the Palestinian dream - isn’t that, maybe-kinda just a teensy-weensy bit because of the chaotic, violent climate that Hamas and Fatah have created?
Can’t you picture a lot of investors saying:
“If the Palis aren’t honoring their peace agreements - who says they will honor business agreements?”
or:
“Who knows if the guy I sign a deal with will be alive in a few months - maybe there will be another thug in charge, and there goes my investment.”
So: who is ultimately responsible for the situation?
If people don’t want to invest, it’s a natural consequence of Palistinian policy choices and actions.
This comment was written by Ben-David.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2007 at 7:06 am
Amp,
Yes, I know the Israelis destroyed the power plant. Do you remember why, or what was going on at the time? It’s not as if they woke up one day and said “Hey, I know, even though we are at a happy peace let’s go find something Palestinian, and bomb or destroy it!”
It is true that an investor would be unlikely to build, right now, a new power plant. But I think that’s actually more an issue of Palestinian behavior. Israel acts in a reasonably predictable manner, and has for a while. (note: predictable does NOT imply “acceptable.”) IMO there’s some decent ability to link “what happens to and around Israel” to “what the Israeli government chooses to do next.” They don’t, for example, generally mount military excursions unless the shots into Israel get high enough. They don’t generally bomb airports or power plants unless they have some reason to believe that they’re being used to attack Israel.
For example, I’d say that absent bombings or military action, the Israelis would not bomb a power plant. Would you disagree? because I think that puts the burden of “it’s impossible to get investors” more on the Palestinians than on Israel. And it also suggests that the transition to “able to get investment” could be achieved fairly quickly.
(And BTW: Ben David, can you stop calling them “Palis?” It sounds like an insult a la “Japs” and whether or not you intend it to be insulting, it’s not helping your argument any.)
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Ben-David–
Leaving aside your own cherry-picking of factoids and the rather callous disregard that I find in your posts here for what the current situation might look like from the Palestinian perspective, I will say, simply, this: When I wrote that it seems to me entirely reasonable for Israel to see itself at war with Hamas–not necessarily with the Palestinians pre se, but with Hamas specifically–I was, in part at least, supporting your point that Hamas needs to be judged according to its actions. I also think the same is true of Israel, however, and given what I know of the history of the region, Israel has not only not done everything right, but it is also guilty, in the same ways that the Palestinians are guilty, of acts that are morally questionable at best.
I grew up with the narrative of Israeli best-intentions that you are putting forth here, at least by implication. Frankly, I find it tiresome; it is, in its structure, not much different than the narrative of American best-intentions that people use in this country. The Israelis and the Palestinians are both morally compromised–I find your phrase “largely humane occupation” to be an especially egregious form of double-speak–and they are each morally culpable, though in different ways–and, depending on the point in history one is talking about, perhaps to different degrees–in their failure to arrive at peace. That seems to me to be the only honest point from which to start thinking about this whole situation.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2007 at 7:59 am
No. Or at least, not evidently.
You would need to have at least some basis of comparison showing frequency, support, etc.
Think of it this way: We have the death penalty. Most countries don’t. But there are surely some groups in every country who support it. It’s OK to judge us by our support for the death penalty, because it’s common enough to make the attribution reasonable, and, after all, it’s the policy of our elected government: if we don’t like the attribution, we can change the government. It’s not OK to judge other countries by the death penalty advocates, because they obviously aren’t representative.
Same here.
Take those Palestinian actions which are supported by, well, “most” Palestinians. These actions include Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians, which tactic is (depending on where they’re talking) either tacitly or openly supported by the democratically elected government of the Palestinians, which won a majority of votes. There are, of course, other actions which are supported by the Palestinians and by the Palestinian government, some of them good and some bad.
Where do suicide bombers fall in that spectrum? Hard to say exactly. I’d say that they are relatively well accepted if not supported, though I realize that opinions may differ.
On the other hand, you have the Israeli actions which are supported by a similar proportion of Israelis. Do the poisoners fall into that category? I don’t think so. But if you do, I’m curious as to why.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Sailorman:
1) You must be a better typist than I.
This comment was written by Ben-David.2) This is pretty standard usage among English speakers here in Israel - but thanks for the feedback.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2007 at 11:58 am
“Take those Palestinian actions which are supported by, well, “most” Palestinians. ”
Uh huh. No cherry-picking here, either.
Ben-David,
As Ampersand wrote this post, I defer to his call on whether or not to ban you. However, you’ve more than crossed the line in my opinion.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Sailorman, no one in Palestine has the practical ability to stop Palestinian terrorists from shooting missiles at Israelis. Suggesting that they could just choose to stop attacking Israelis, and then Israel wouldn’t bomb their infrastructure is giving any madman with a bomb veto power over whether or not Gaza can have needed infrastructure that — beyond any doubt — saves lives.
A UN official quoted in Haaretz said that in the last year, two Israeli civilians have been killed by missiles from Gaza. That’s tragic — but the hundreds of Palestinian civilians killed in that same time period are a tragedy, too. I do think that Israel has a right to self-defense, but it has to be proportionate; it’s not the case that it’s reasonable to sacrifice hundreds or thousands of Palestinian lives, including dozens of children, in order to protect the handful of Israelis living within five miles of Gaza.
It’s also interesting that when Israelis kill Palestinian civilians in Gaza, you say that’s legitimate self-defense and they shouldn’t have voted for a group that includes violent militants (even though there was no alternative group to vote for that does not include violent militants). But you apparently don’t feel that it’s legitimate for Palestinians to kill Israeli civilians in Israel; that is never legitimate self-defense, in your view.
The Palestinians have been invaded, occupied, and killed in numbers far outnumbering Israeli deaths. What you’re saying to them is that no matter how many Palestinian children are killed, it is never acceptable for even one Israeli citizen to be killed in response, and if one Israeli citizen is killed that justifies collective punishment of all Palestinians. Can you understand why your belief that Israelis are allowed to collectively punish innocent Palestinians, but Palestinians have no parallel right to attack Israelis, wouldn’t be very persuasive to most Palestinians? (At least, most of the ones I’ve met.)
Personally, I don’t think Palestinians have any right to attack Israeli civilians, except in acts of direct and immediate self-defense, or in the case of police arresting specific accused criminals for specific crimes (and then, only if there’s a legitimate trial to follow).
I also don’t think Israelis have any right to attack Palestinian civilians, except in acts of direct and immediate self-defense, or in the case of police arresting specific accused criminals for specific crimes (and then, only if there’s a legitimate trial to follow).
(I don’t think either side has a right to kill civilians in order to knock off non-civilians, either.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Quoth Ampersand:
Hamas has enough gunmen that they were able to effectively crush the Fatah presence in Gaza. It’s very plausible that they could stop the rockets; certainly, Israeli military intelligence seems to believe so, and I suspect they know better than any poster here.
Also, Hamas claims they can stop the rockets. The key premise of the peace process is that the Palestinian leadership can deliver peace. If Hamas can’t stop the rockets, it makes no sense to treat them as the negotiating agent of the Palestinian people.
Under international law, if Hamas wants to be treated as a sovereign government, it must be responsible for the actions of its citizens. There can’t be a peace process if the Palestinians can’t stop their citizens from conducting acts of war.
So, this is basically saying “neither side should attack civilians, but neither has any practical remedies if the other side does.” It isn’t possible for either the Palestinians or the Israelis to arrest their enemies without an armed incursion that would kill substantial numbers of civilians. Israeli police can’t go into Gaza without tanks and helicopters; Gaza has no normal police force, and certainly none that can operate in Israel.
Politically, that’s a non-starter.
This comment was written by NotACookie.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Seconding the above response… then why on earth should Israel negotiate with them at all? If