There are political questions I find to be sources of endless fascination, such as the intersection between politics and economics, or political economy, particularly the propensity of all parties to such controversies to elevate their contingent bargaining positions to ideological orthodoxies, from which one dissents on pain of being declared a Market Fundamentalist, or, on the other hand, a Socialist. Yes, it is tedious, but also entertaining, because questions of wealth and power are at stake.
There are other political questions with kindle in my breast a powerful sense of ennui, a sort of boredom with the subject, and irritation that someone has broached it, and a prickly sensation which indicates that, aggravating though it may be, it may be unavoidable. Health-care policy is one such question for me.
There are still other political questions/perspectives which fill me with a mixture of detestation and fury, such as the morbid obsession of European elites and vast swathes of the European populace with grand demonstrations of resolve against the dread, invisible menace of resurgent fascism, now thought to manifest itself in the form of protest movements against Islamization, or the presence of bookends in the libraries of Vlaams Blok members. If some Europeans have given rein to the death drive, one can do no more than point to this melancholy fact and pray, for theirs is not a rational position in the first instance.
Then, there are other political questions which arouse a powerful sense of hathos, a hatred of the discourse that surrounds them, irrespective of whatever position one might hold concerning them, coupled with a paradoxical attraction to that same discourse. Two questions arouse this sensibility in me. The first is the intermittent and intemperate debate over whether Steve Sailer and other evolutionary conservatives are "evolcons" or "evilcons". For the record, while I am not one to favour reductionism, to the extent that evolcons practice it, the latter judgment strikes me as histrionic. The second is the Israel/Palestine question.
I might be tempted to state that I detest the discourse surrounding the dispute because it is one in which, like the preposterous expectation in some circles that one must declare one's acceptance of/sympathy with the designated victim group du jour before venturing a tentative, mewling criticism of that group, one must preface even excruciatingly nuanced criticisms of specific Israeli policies with lengthy condemnations of the Palestinians - and, of course, Hamas is a wicked and pernicious organization, and Fatah is, if at all better, only marginally less bad than Hamas, and every Palestinian "tactic" beyond the throwing of stones has been an injustice, because targeted at civilians - but that wouldn't be entirely accurate. In fact, it would understate the problem with the "conversation", such as it is, over Israel/Palestine, which is that it is all too often the kryptonite for rational discourse. Mention that one regards Israeli policy X as suspect under the conditions of just war doctrine, and one is immediately confronted with the question, "Well, what would you have them do in response to Hamas/Hizbollah/Fatah/PLO action Y?", the implication being that if one does not have a ready and militarily robust answer to that emotive inquiry, one might as well openly avow one's desire to witness the destruction of the state of Israel. Which, of course, is absolute codswallop. One is, to all appearances, forbidden to believe that there obtain no achievable solutions, or at least that there are no solutions that would at once satisfy the requirements of Israeli domestic politics, Arab politics, and the requirements of justice. One must believe, somehow, that the circle can be squared. One is forbidden to plead either ignorance or apophaticism - ie., that whatever the solution may be, if there is one, it isn't X.
And so, in the spirit of loathing for this question, and acknowledging without hesitation that the Palestinians are "governed" by reprobates, I want to inquire, without any ulterior motivations, whether the Israeli policy conforms to just war doctrine.
Is the threat posed by Hamas, launching crude rockets as terror weapons, and largely blockaded in its Gaza redoubt, lasting, grave, and certain? I could go either way in answering this question.
Have all other means of resolving the problem been demonstrated to be impractical and ineffective, such that blockades, bombardments, and ground assaults are truly a last recourse? Going solely by the level of ongoing controversy in the Israeli press, where policies towards the Palestinians are subjected to critiques more diverse and extensive than the run of things in America, I'd say not.
Does the Israeli incursion possess, as the 2006 war in Lebanon did not, reasonable prospects of success, defined as either the ouster of the Hamas regime or the inculcation of a "lesson" that somehow persuades the Palestinians to renounce what Israel wishes for them to renounce, which is much more than the use of rocketry as a terror weapon, and more even than the renunciation of suicide bombing? Score this one a "No", inasmuch as the Palestinians are likely, as are all peoples when subjected to conditions of blockade and warfare, to either rally round Hamas or rally round an organization that might arise to displace the increasingly ineffectual Hamas (it should be noted that Hamas' popularity was waning prior to the recent flare-up in hostilities, and that, as these things go in Palestine, the marginalization of one faction always results in the emergence of a more radical, more rejectionist organization: Marginalizing the PLO/Fatah allowed Hamas and Islamic Jihad to rise.) This is elementary national psychology.
Is the Israeli policy proportionate - proportionate in actuality, and not as a matter of mere mental intentions, which count for nothing? Must I link to Marty Peretz and Michael Goldfarb celebrating the absence of proportion in the Israeli response? Are we going to form judgments as to the proportionality of a given response solely on the basis of what the actors themselves think of their actions, on the basis of their subjective mental states as inferred from their words?
In fine, I do not believe that a consideration of the present conflict in Gaza from the standpoint of just war doctrine yields a clean bill of health for Israel. The Palestinians, as always, flunk that test from the first criterion onwards; but I should think that "less unjust" is an insufficient basis for the affirmation of the Israeli policy. And while I fervently believe that the Palestinians ought to attempt - not that it will ever transpire - nonviolent resistance, what I would like to know is what supporters of the Israeli policy would have them do if they did attempt nonviolent resistance, and nothing happened - if everything remained the same. The question has salience insofar as the attempt to comprehend the mindset of a party to a dispute or conflict, from the inside, as it were, is an integral aspect of foreign policy formulation.
Note: Abusive comments will, at my discretion, be either deleted or edited for content.
Comments (35)
And while I fervently believe that the Palestinians ought to attempt - not that it will ever transpire - nonviolent resistance, what I would like to know is what supporters of the Israeli policy would have them do if they did attempt nonviolent resistance, and nothing happened - if everything remained the same.
I'll tell you what they ought to do: They ought to quit, surrender, capitulate, give up, throw in the towel. That's what every people up to about 80 years ago used to do when they had no hope of military victory. There's nothing disgraceful in it. It demonstates a recognition of reality.
And, by the way, they ought to skip the "non-violent resistence" crap and go straight to groveling.
Posted by George R. | January 5, 2009 9:17 AM
Well George R., you are remarkably consistent in your disregard for human life. Defending the saturation bombing of German cities, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, ethnic cleansing, blockades of food and medical supplies and so forth, no one could accuse you of being "soft on terrorism". You embrace it.
Posted by Kevin | January 5, 2009 9:35 AM
Jeff
Would you care to undertake a similar analysis of Hamas's actions towards Israel since it took de facto control of Gaza. Given that neither side is an heir to Just War theory it seems rather odd to only subject the Israelis to this analysis. I appreciate your statement:
But in light of the rhetorical proctology exam you gave the Israeli side it seems more of a toss off that a serious effort.
I also have to question your underlying thesis:
There is no need for Palestinian resistance, nonviolent or violent, unless one subscribes to the whole notion of wars of national liberation which many of us thought died sometime around 1989. The crux of the problem is the refusal of the Palestinians to accept the right of Israel to exist. Israel has withdrawn from most of her conquests. Judea and Samaria are now the seat of a Palestinian statelet. Sinai was returned to Egypt. Gaza was returned to Egypt. The only stumbling block on the return of the Golan is the anti-historical claims in regards to Sheba'a Farms. In short, the Palestinians have achieved statehood. The misery of the Palestinian people is as much a tactic by their alleged leadership to focus rage outward as any legitimate grievance with Israel.
What more you wish for them to achieve by non-violent resistance, other than the destruction of Israel, is more than a little unclear.
Posted by streiff | January 5, 2009 9:42 AM
George isn't embracing terrorism; he's opposing it, and he's showing that he knows from which quarter it actually comes.
Like Max, I'd love to see Gaza become the arena of non-violent protest. Also like Max, I don't expect to see it.
Posted by Michael Bauman | January 5, 2009 9:45 AM
George isn't embracing terrorism...
I know, I know. The new morality holds some lives are less worthy than others. I just can't get the hang of it.
Posted by Kevin | January 5, 2009 10:24 AM
In short, the Palestinians have achieved statehood.
I fear that this is the crux of the controversy, since I consider both parties to the dispute to have negotiated in bad faith, the Palestinians refusing to definitively renounce terrorism, and the Israelis refusing to evacuate all of the settlements and associated 'security corridors', including virtually the whole of the Jordan Valley, much less come to an equitable arrangement for the sharing of water resources. So long as the Palestinians believe in the legitimacy of terrorist tactics, and so long as the Israelis insist upon maintaining their settlements and outposts, all strategically located so as to serve as choke/checkpoints throughout the West Bank, and mandate maximalist concessions on the part of the Palestinians (renounce your own government - a demand that has never borne the exoterically desired fruit in any situation - as a precondition of ending a blockade, and not even of a return to negotiations regarding a national settlement), the wheel of fate will continue its rounds.
As regards the application of just war criteria to the Palestinians, this is precisely the sort of thing against which I have already protested, as though one must first participate in the ritual denunciations before venturing a timorous suggestion that the Israeli cause is not itself swaddled in radiant white raiment, and as though legions of other commentators have not already noted the obvious, that the Palestinian tactics to not conform to the requirements of proportionality (killing civilians, or attempting to do so, in not proportionate to anything at all), the requirement that there obtain prospects for success (crude rockets and suicide bombers will not overcome a determined IDF), or the requirement that all other means of resolution must be attempted and found lacking before warfare becomes legitimate (have they ever tried nonviolent resistance?). Finally, is the threat to Palestinian society, to the extent that it is a society, lasting, grave, and certain? Well, it is no justification of terrorism to observe that, should the Israelis perpetuate their present policies of settlement and garrison, Palestinian society will become increasingly untenable, and the formation of any reasonably stable civil society, let alone a functioning government in the territories, will become impossible. The options then will be either the dissolution of what remains of Palestinian society, perhaps resulting in "population transfer", which is to say, ethnic cleansing, or the de facto emergence of a permanent Israeli colonial state, in which the Israeli minority will rule, by force, a growing Palestinian population. Israeli public discourse recognizes the long-term implications of the situation, though this recognition seldom filters down to the American discourse, which, as always, is derivative.
Posted by Maximos | January 5, 2009 10:27 AM
This is o simple that I don't know why it's so hard to understand.
Israel would LOVE peace but not the peace that is being demanded by
those calling themselves Palestinians and the Iranians, which is total destruction of Israel. That is not peace. If Israel gave the Pals 100% of their demands Hamas would continue to bomb Israel.
They, pals, have violated EVERY cease fire or treaty they have signed on to. How else can they be judged by?
Posted by Michael Dugas | January 5, 2009 10:33 AM
Kevin,
If I understand him correctly, George isn't saying that some lives are more worthy than others. But some deaths are more justifiable than others - and that's not a new morality.
Posted by Michael Bauman | January 5, 2009 10:50 AM
I think you err in conflating the statehood they have achieved with the statehood they wish. If you're going to take the position that Israel has no just claim to the lands won in 1967, my view is that they have the same right to those lands as the Russians have to Eastern Poland and the Poles to old East Prussia, or that we have to Texas and the American Southwest.
Wars have consequences which is one reason they should not be entered into in a cavalier manner.
If you don't accept the outcome of 1967 I'd be more than curious to know why you think the outcome of 1948 or 1956 shouldn't similarly be rolled back.
And I must admit that I am at a loss at this juncture to completely understand the point of this ritual flagellation of Israel. If we agree that Hamas and Israel are de facto at war, and that Hamas has not only provoked this latest round (and the last round) by firing rockets into Israeli territory (I could add "indiscriminately" given their lamentable accuracy but as their purpose is as much to terrorize the population as to inflict damage they are the logical successors of the V-1/V-2 programs where inaccuracy is a feature not a bug) AND that in terms of Just War, Israel is more, in your view, compliant, what is this but a "pox on both your houses" rant.
As to particulars, the security corridors and fortified towns are a part of the landscape. The fact that the Palestinians don't like it is not really germane to the discussion as those activities are carried out in Israel.
They have tried non-violent resistance by withholding their labor from Israel (it was non violent from the Israeli perspective but hardly that from the perspective of the laborer who had his throat cut for trying to work in Israel) and Israel imported temporary laborers from Eastern Europe thereby making the Palestinians redundant. Well played.
At some point Israel will have to address its burgeoning muslim Arab population. I don't know how that will play out and I suspect few others do either. Until that time, even given your bill of indictment, I find it hard to fathom that anyone thinks that Hamas is preferable to Israel in that part of the world. The Egyptians don't.
Posted by streiff | January 5, 2009 11:32 AM
Michael,
You're right. The concept that I can kill the civilians of another state, but the enemy is a war criminal when he does likewise, predates the birth, death and Resurrection of Christ.
I heard the Israeli Ambassador to the the United States say this war is not aimed at the Palestinian people, but Hamas. That may be a distinction those who live in Gaza will find hard to make. George R. clearly has no intention of doing so, but I truly hope you do. If not, Israel needs better friends.
Posted by Kevin | January 5, 2009 11:34 AM
Kevin,
We agree on more than might appear at first blush. The distinction between a civilian and a combatant is an extremely important one, but one that, in this case, is incredibly difficult to make with precision because the Palestinian combatants are civilians not in uniform, and they protect their military interests by hiding their weapons in mosques and themselves in the population at large.
Posted by Michael Bauman | January 5, 2009 12:43 PM
Michale,
I understand the tactics of Hamas. What I don't understand, is why Israel plays into their rope-a dope scheme. Until the West learns how to fight assymetrical warfare and refuses to reenact the David Koresh - Waco compound conflagration we will edge closer and closer to moral ruin.
Posted by Kevin | January 5, 2009 12:53 PM
I must apologize, streiff, inasmuch as I am not a pagan who believes that might makes right. I cannot embrace the simplistic notion that "wars have consequences" and that whatever happens in consequence of a conflict simply happens, and that whatever is as a result of that conflict is just de facto. You may not consider your viewpoint pagan, and you are entitled to that opinion; but for my part, "might makes right" is applied paganism, and we ought not indulge private sense of terms and phrases - and the notion that "the Israelis won, tough for the Palestinians" is not consistent with just war doctrine, a mere private opinion.
Posted by Maximos | January 5, 2009 1:41 PM
Kevin,
The Israelis actually warned Nizar Riyan of their attack and he choose to ignore the IDF warning. I think that when it comes to how to fight assymetrical war, we could learn a lot from the IDF.
Maximos,
This is a curious way to describe the problem with the Israeli "bad faith" position: "refusing to evacuate all of the settlements and associated 'security corridors', including virtually the whole of the Jordan Valley, much less come to an equitable arrangement for the sharing of water resources". Ah yes, if only the Israelis could agree to a fair use of the water, the Palestinians would make peace right away! More seriously, you must know that prior to 1967, the Israelis faced a precarious security situation especially in the Jordan Valley and their desire to maintain a more stable security border must be a part of any fair and just final settlement. Or perhaps all the Arab states can unilaterally renounce their war against Israel so the Israelis can sleep soundly at night? And then we come to this howler: "should the Israelis perpetuate their present policies of settlement and garrison, Palestinian society will become increasingly untenable, and the formation of any reasonably stable civil society, let alone a functioning government in the territories, will become impossible." Really? All that is holding back the Palestinians is "settlement and garrison"? Again, I think you need to do some more reading about Palestinian civil society and culture before making such absurd statements. Which is not to say every Israeli settlement is just or fair. As you point out, plenty of Israelis think the occupation should end. But worrying about the justice of Israel's wars seems slightly off...there are plenty of injustices in the world and the focus on Israel seems to indicated a certain moral blindness to the money our government gives to Egypt or to the wars being waged unjustly in Africa. Why don't Western Europeans take to the streets (or demand internation action) when they read about the slaughter in the Congo?
Posted by Jeff Singer | January 5, 2009 1:42 PM
Ah, no, Jeff. The argument is not that there are no problems in Palestinian "society" which themselves render the achievement of peace difficult, even impossible, but that there are contradictions and tensions in Israeli society that likewise render the achievement of peace impossible. Injustices are not mutually legitimating, or, in this instance, unidirectionally legitimating.
This amuses me:
More seriously, you must know that prior to 1967, the Israelis faced a precarious security situation especially in the Jordan Valley and their desire to maintain a more stable security border must be a part of any fair and just final settlement.
Being translated, it means that, Israel's security being what it is, Israel must find a means of ceding a Palestinian state without ceding a Palestinian state.
The longer I contemplate this situation, the more sympathetic I become to the position that holds it that we should simply wash our hands of the conflict, including of the military aid we provide Israel. There are no tenable claims of original possession, and so there will never be a resolution.
Posted by Maximos | January 5, 2009 1:48 PM
RE: 1948 and 1967 - the former should not be reversed because the Israelis are not going anywhere, while the latter should be reversed because the Palestinians are not going anywhere.
Posted by Maximos | January 5, 2009 1:55 PM
Jeff,
I think that when it comes to how to fight assymetrical war, we could learn a lot from the IDF.
Sure the conditions of Gaza - 1.5 million people in a septic, open-air prison - isn't a breeding ground for radicalization, is it? How did Lebanon work-out? Do you think this latest episode in Gaza will be different? Repeating the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is insane. As the human misery escalates, peace remains more elusive than ever.
Lift the embargo. Air-lift supplies and food on a Marshall Plan scale, dispatch thousands of AID workers and pick-off the Hamas leadership one by one. There are no other options right now.
Posted by Kevin | January 5, 2009 2:42 PM
Kevin,
You are just plain wrong about the conditions in Gaza, but in any event, Israel itself has been providing humanitarian aid including medical care to wounded Palestinians. Their invasion is designed to pick-off the Hamas leader AND to destroy weapons, etc. of that are used against their civilian population. The human misery can end when Palestinians stop attacking Israel and start trying to honestly rebuild their society. By the way, I'm sure you realize that Israel also invaded the West Bank back in 2002 and was very successful in killing terror leaders and destroying their ability to continue to launch suicide attacks (coupled with the security wall). Gaza is not Lebanon (which could have worked better if the Israelis were given more time, although there haven't been rocket attacks from the north since their 2006 attack) and it is silly and foolish to continue to argue that going after terrorists with force will always fail. Again, I would direct your attention to history and since I just finished reading about Spain, think of General Franco, blessed by the Pope, who used plenty of force to crush the 'reds' (and other enemies of the true Spain). And you know what -- he succeeded! So apparently force can and does work from time to time.
Posted by Jeff Singer | January 5, 2009 2:59 PM
If there is to be peace, it must be the peace of the desert. Either the Palestinians must be made to go away, or the Israelis must. But Palestinians can't drive the Israelis away, and the Israelis won't allow themselves, nor would they be allowed by their patrons in the US and Europe, to drive the Palestinians away. So this is just going to keep happening until one side or the other is both willing and able to do away with the other for good. In the meantime, this conflict is just dreary and pointless, though it has a rather pernicious influence on American politics. The bombings and counterbombings accomplish nothing militarily - they are political theater that advance neither belligerent one step closer to victory.
The blogger Mencius Moldbug is fond of this quote from Carlyle, which sums up eloquently what America's response to this conflict should be:
He didn't crush them enough. Look at who's running the place now.Posted by Cyrus | January 5, 2009 3:35 PM
Here is a flavor for life in Gaza since the blockade. Can you honestly justify all of this on moral grounds? We already know it is counter-productive - as predicted by Israeli opponents of the "strategy".
As of March 6, 2008; "Gaza's humanitarian situation is at its worst since Israel occupied the territory in 1967, say UK-based human rights and development groups. They include Amnesty International, Save the Children, Cafod, Care International and Christian Aid
They criticise Israel's blockade on Gaza as illegal collective punishment which fails to deliver security.
More than 80% of population rely on humanitarian aid
Unemployment about 40%
No running water for 25-30% of Gazans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7280026.stm
As of December 2007 – an Israeli newspaper;
"Local water is undrinkable. Israel does not let in bottled water. Nor does Israel allow the importation of water pumps. The price of water filters has gone up from 150 NIS to 1000 NIS, there are no spare parts at all for filters. Only the well-to-do can still afford them. However, chlorine is let in…Israel prevents all imports into the strip, except a small list of about a dozen basic products. Before, 900 trucks were employed daily for the imports and exports of the Gaza Strip, now these are reduced to 15. For example, no soap is allowed in…The severely sick cannot reach a hospital - neither in Israel, nor in Egypt or Jordan. The few permits issued are often delivered after a fatal delay…”
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/events/1197474415
March 3 2006 – an Israeli newspaper;
"In the last two months, Israel killed 224 Palestinians, 62 of them children and 25 of them women. It bombed and assassinated, destroyed and shelled, and no one stopped it. No Qassam cell or smuggling tunnel justifies such wide-scale killing. A day doesn't go by without deaths, most of them innocent civilians…On the contrary, there is a horror taking place in Gaza, and while it might prevent a few terror attacks in the short run, it is bound to give birth to much more murderous terror.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/757768.htm
Posted by Kevin | January 5, 2009 11:34 PM
Jeff,
Here is a flavor for life in Gaza since the blockade. I tried to send the links, but the comment was blocked. I'll let you make the moral and strategic case for the conditions below.
As of March 6, 2008; BBC -Gaza's humanitarian situation is at its worst since Israel occupied the territory in 1967, say UK-based human rights and development groups. They include Amnesty International, Save the Children, Cafod, Care International and Christian Aid. They criticise Israel's blockade on Gaza as illegal collective punishment which fails to deliver security.
More than 80% of population rely on humanitarian aid
Unemployment about 40%
No running water for 25-30% of Gazans
As of December 14 2007 – Gush Shalom - an Israeli peace organization;Local water is undrinkable. Israel does not let in bottled water. Nor does Israel allow the importation of water pumps. The price of water filters has gone up from 150 NIS to 1000 NIS, there are no spare parts at all for filters. Only the well-to-do can still afford them. However, chlorine is let in…Israel prevents all imports into the strip, except a small list of about a dozen basic products. Before, 900 trucks were employed daily for the imports and exports of the Gaza Strip, now these are reduced to 15. For example, no soap is allowed in…The severely sick cannot reach a hospital - neither in Israel, nor in Egypt or Jordan. The few permits issued are often delivered after a fatal delay…”
March 3 2006 – Haaretz -an Israeli newspaper;
In the last two months, Israel killed 224 Palestinians, 62 of them children and 25 of them women. It bombed and assassinated, destroyed and shelled, and no one stopped it. No Qassam cell or smuggling tunnel justifies such wide-scale killing. A day doesn't go by without deaths, most of them innocent civilians…On the contrary, there is a horror taking place in Gaza, and while it might prevent a few terror attacks in the short run, it is bound to give birth to much more murderous terror.”
Posted by Kevin | January 5, 2009 11:43 PM
Kevin,
Please spare me the propaganda -- I realize life is no picnic in Gaza right now, but thankfully you, the BBC and left-wing Israelis (I'm surprised you didn't include the AP -- they can usually be counted on to totally get the story wrong) are not my only source of news about Gaza so I know it is not a "septic, open-air prison", which is what you originally claimed.
And even if it were as bad as you say, I reject the whole premise of your argument which is a variant of poverty = radicalism. Poverty does not breed radical hate and a quick look around the globe should disabuse you of that notion quickly -- lots of poverty but only small (relative to the poverty) concentrated pockets of intense hate.
Posted by Jeff Singer | January 6, 2009 8:06 AM
Jeff,
O.k., so the testimony of international aid organizations, Israeli peace organizations and an Israeli newspaper won't suffice, so I doubt the U.N.'s special envoy to the Middle East Peace Process will have little impact;"The effective Israeli isolation of Gaza is not justified. . . . It amounts to collective punishment and is contrary to international humanitarian law," he said. "Moreover, it does not appear to be having the desired effect either in halting the rockets or weakening Hamas' position among the people of Gaza. . . . Only those who want to see further radicalization can be happy with the present situation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603532.html
A dispossessed people, living in squalor and trapped between their own home-grown lunatics and an occupying state can only be fertile ground for hatred and violence. What will it take for you to see this monotonous cycle isn't working on any level and that it is the existence of Israel that is most threatened by its continuation?
Those who pine for Israel to "take the gloves off" are among other things, ignorant. The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors and the original settlers of 1948 make up the Israeli peace movement. Their moral code and sense of history will not allow for some final elimination of, or victory over 7 million Palestinians. And I think we both agree, Israel experiencing a South African-like fate through demography and Arab insurrections would be catastrophic.
Since, you dismiss the sources above, I'll provide you with an interview with Zionist historian, Benny Morris. Those of good faith committed to a just and peaceful resolution of this conflict can only benefit from reading it. One need not share his conclusions in order to gain greater knowledge and invaluable insight.
http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm
Posted by Kevin | January 6, 2009 9:06 AM
Thanks for posting the link to the interview with Morris, which was at once informative and appalling in its unabashed consequentialism - and, for all that, managed to elide the obvious critique: If it was licit to "break a few eggs" in order to bring into being a new state, how is it prima facie illicit for the other side to seek to "break a few eggs" in order to resist the new state, or to bring into being a new state of their own?
Posted by Maximos | January 6, 2009 11:59 AM
Morris, would argue the exercise of brute force is the only option for survival. I fear his self-fulfilling conclusion is gaining ground. His 1948 is a tough read due to the blizzard of details and names, but he does offer a haunting narrative that goes deeper into the full dimensions of this tragedy. He is a controversial figure within Israel who has attained credibility through his honest scholarship, and is well-worth reading as kind of a weather-vane.
Posted by Kevin | January 6, 2009 12:30 PM
Kevin,
I'm glad you read Morris, as he is at least somewhat better than the group of "New Historians" with which he is often grouped. But I'm afraid I will have to dissent on the claim that he has "attained credibility through his honest scholarship".
You and I just have a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes "brute force" and whether or not it is necessary for survival (I say it is). But perhaps when Chechnya pops up in the news again we will be treated to a Maximos post on the brutality and horrors of the Russian army (Mike T posts the figure of 160,000 killed out of a population of just over 1.1 million) and then we can come to some agreement on the meaning of "brute force".
Posted by Jeff Singer | January 7, 2009 8:55 AM
The trouble with the analogy to Chechnya is that the situations are really asymmetrical, in terms of both American involvement and the American national interest. The Russian campaigns in Chechnya have been grotesquely disproportionate, but the neoconservative attempts to have their cake and eat it too - pretend to oppose the global jihad, yet cozy up with the jihadists in Chechnya, whitewashing their Islamism and attempt to portray them as a simple national-liberation movement against Stalinism redivivus, the better to legitimate the pointless (because Russia is not now, nor will ever be again, a threat to dominate Eurasia, as it might have been during the Cold War) strategy of exercising hegemony along the Russian periphery - only serve to demonstrate that, however awful the Russian conduct was, no vital American interest was at stake in Chechnya. None. If anything, the Chechens having associations with some of the Wahhabist networks operating out of Saudi Arabia, and connections with some of the Islamist networks of the Balkans, it was manifestly in the interest of the United States for the Chechen cause to fail.
The Israeli situation, owing to the special relationship, and American entanglements in the Middle East, is quite different, and the identification of the United States with Israeli intransigence does not redound to our strategic advantage. That the Russian campaigns in Chechnya have been orders of magnitude less proportionate that anything Israel has undertaken does not alter this strategic calculus.
As regards Morris, what his critics from the Israeli right fail to acknowledge is that Zionism is more variegated than the simple morality play of, "We offered them equality in a secular polity, but they rejected our magnanimity". Different strands of the tradition sometimes cohere in single persons, manifesting themselves in different periods or circumstances; and, in point of fact, the complexity of Zionism is reflected in the divisions within contemporary Israel, and in the inability of Israeli society to come to terms with the role of the settlements on the land occupied in 1967 in radicalizing the Palestinians.
Posted by Maximos | January 7, 2009 11:00 AM
All of which being interpreted amounts to the fact that some people make a much, much bigger deal out of what they view as the disproportionate nature of Israeli actions than they make out of (what they are sometimes forced to admit are) the far more disproportionate Russian actions, because they are simply more interested in talking about the former than about the latter. And they are more interested in talking about it because they want to criticize America in both foreign policy situations. Turning them into what one might even call, quaintly, anti-American morality plays. As it were.
Posted by Lydia | January 7, 2009 11:34 AM
No, my discourse on Russia is as it is because we tend to perceive wrongly our interests along the Russian periphery; it is not in the American interest that the Chechen cause succeed, nor that America erect a de facto condon sanitaire around Russia, and no amount of handwringing or sincerely impassioned denunciations of Russian atrocities can alter this calculus, any more than outpourings of outrage over Darfur can transform that conflict from one that implicates no American interest to one that does, quite to the contrary of Michael Gerson. And - this being the burden of my commentary on Russian affairs - we are wrong to the extent that we believe that Chechnya, Georgia, and the Ukraine really are legitimate and objective American interests. The statements a)Foreign controversies X, Y, and Z along the Russian periphery implicate no American strategic interests, and b)Russia is morally entitled to do as it wills in foreign controversies X, Y, and Z are not equivalent, save upon the smuggled presupposition that America is, in fact, entitled to function as an hegemonic global power. Which it is not. The fact that there obtains a specifiable evil somewhere in the world does not of itself either implicate American interests, or obligate/entitle America to resolve it. The tertium quid is none of our business.
However, the Middle East is, as I have indicated, a case to the contrary, and our policies there neither redound to our own interests nor the long-term interests of the state of Israel, one long-term interest of which is in not becoming the sort of polity - and people - to perpetrate acts of ethnic cleansing.
Posted by Maximos | January 7, 2009 11:51 AM
Maximos,
For a second there I actually thought you were worried about Palestinian suffering, but your last post disabused me of that notion! I kid, but your post is clarifying and for that I thank you. The best and most intellectually honest paleo critique of Israel is built around the notion that our support for Israel is against American interests in the region. I think this case is flawed and wrong, but I think asking the question "is action X in the American interest" is a very good guide to foreign policy.
This statement however, is a howler: "and in the inability of Israeli society to come to terms with the role of the settlements on the land occupied in 1967 in radicalizing the Palestinians." Right. Because before 1967 Palestinians were not radicalized! Maximos, I'd like to introduce you to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The two of you will have a ball going over the history of the Zionist enterprise from roughly 1900 - 1948 and the reasonable actions of the Palestinians during this period. You will also enjoy reviewing the role 'reasonable' Palestinians played in the 1949 - 1967 period.
Posted by Jeff Singer | January 7, 2009 1:47 PM
The term "radicalization" is a reference to the increasingly Islamic colouration of the resistance, a fact that no one disputes. The relative influence of secularists and cynics like Arafat has waned, while the Islamists have waxed.
Frankly, one of the absurdities of the debate over Israeli policy is the truly bizarre assumption that there was nothing at all morally compromised, questionable, or problematic about the Zionist enterprise of, you know, moving en masse to a region, buying up land - with the express intention (at least amongst the Zionists themselves) of becoming the dominant politico-social power in that land, come what may - and then forcing the issue when resistance and opposition manifested themselves. The presupposition would seem to be that demographic shifts, and political and social shifts consequent upon demographic shifts, present no ethical issues, or perhaps that they present no such issues when certain peoples are involved in those shifts. To many Europeans, Muslim immigration presents no moral issues, and those who have the temerity to suggest that it does are denounced in the faux-moralistic, therapeutic terms of post-national Western society, as being intolerant, atavistic, and fascistic. Obviously, this European position is absurd. Perhaps, then, the idea is that Jewish immigration to Palestine was and is morally unproblematic. But not even Zionists argue that, at least not amongst themselves, where it is admitted that their ambitions were bound to be adverse to Palestinian interests, and that the Palestinians, from within their historical perspective, were rational to oppose those ambitions. The point is not, for those not paying close attention, that Jewish immigration to Palestine is analogous to Muslim immigration to Europe, but that immigration, demographic shifts, and the like are always ethically complex, the more so when they involve acts reminiscent of conquest, actual acts of expropriation, and so forth.
Or am I to understand that the Palestinians, from the very inception of Jewish immigration in the late-nineteenth century, could have had no licit objection to the alteration of what society they possessed? And the point here is not to suggest that every Palestinian grievance, or interpretive matrix, has been legitimate, but that the relentless othering of the Palestinians is truly ridiculous. Of course they'd find the new immigration objectionable, just as the Irish found British/Scottish immigration objectionable.
Posted by Maximos | January 7, 2009 2:25 PM
Maximos,
You say, "Of course they'd find the new immigration objectionable, just as the Irish found British/Scottish immigration objectionable." But why limit yourself to this one example. There is the whole history of European colonization to examine, including the taming of the "merciless savage" in this country. Furthermore, why not examine the whole complicated history of Ottoman colonial rule, which impacted the Arabs of Palestine. I'm not sure why you find the Zionist enterprise any more morally complicated than our own treatment of American Indians (or the Spaniards treatment)? But we can go even further. We can focus on all the population transfers and expulsions within Europe proper and ask ourselves which countries should exist in their present state and/or which people should relinquish their claim on the land due to historical "crimes".
Just for fun, I'd like to start with the French Huguenots, who were treated shabbily by the French kings and their fellow Catholic citizens. Maybe we can give them Monaco although then we'd piss off the Grimaldi family and be back to square one.
Posted by Jeff Singer | January 7, 2009 3:04 PM
The point is not that the Zionist enterprise exhibits greater moral complexity; it is rather that, in its complexity, it is akin to every other national founding, and that the universality of injustice in these foundings does not cause that injustice to disappear, or the specific injustices to be exculpated. As I've said, the Jews are not going anywhere - and nor should they, as they are now, at least within the borders of Israel proper, a settled population - from which it follows that 1948 is inviolate; on the other hand, neither are the Palestinians going anywhere, as they, too, are a settled population, from which it follows that 1967 is not inviolate. Now, in spite of everything that has been said, I really harbour no animus against those who view things differently, with the exception of the sort of dispensensationalists whose interest in this region stems from a yearning for apocalypse, and so, in mentioning Lawrence Auster's support for the transfer of the Palestinians, I'm not engaging in a hostile critique; I merely consider it worth noting that the effectuation of such a policy would subtly delegitimate the Israeli polity, not merely internationally, but internally as well, and that, in consequence, over the long term, this would be subversive of the Zionist project - and quite possibly the West as well. If nothing else, the spectacle of such suffering would dissuade the West from reckoning with its own internal demographic issues, though these will not require anything so harsh as ethnic cleansing.
Posted by Maximos | January 7, 2009 4:24 PM
Maximos,
I appreciate you making your position clearer. I do in fact agree that the Palestinians deserve better and someday should (and will) get their own state. While it breaks my heart to have to force the Jews of Hebron to leave that city, it is not realistic for Israel to protect such a small minority of folks who are despised and hated and breed all sorts of concrete resentment (especially since these Jews are often nasty and aggressive to the local Palestinian population in Hebron) in a way in which the State of Israel will hopefully someday not breed such resentment.
I just think that day is not coming anytime soon and believe that making it clear that the State of Israel will not tolerate terrorism directed at its population will help the situation in the long run, not hurt it.
Let us both pray for peace.
Posted by Jeff Singer | January 7, 2009 5:45 PM
Jeff,
The review you sent from 2005 was once typical of the reaction Morris used to generate since his work appeared as condemnatory of events like "Operation Cleaning" which lead to the Palestinian exodus.
Over the years he has become; "apocalyptic" and holds that ethnic cleansing was never an official policy, but rather an inevitable result of Israeli massacres that naturally occur in every war. He now offers this solution for Palestinians; "Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another."
Morris recently raised the specter of "Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Benny Morris\&st=cse&oref
Posted by Kevin | January 7, 2009 10:42 PM