From the perspective of intent, there does seem to me to be moral clarity between Israel and Hamas. Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist in peace; Israel refuses to recognize Hamas' right to exist as a legitimate polity in Gaza because Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist. Hamas also was the first to break a barely-held ceasefire recently. There seems to me to be no question that Israel has the higher moral ground from the perspective of recent events.I would appreciate a translation to Spanish of the quotation from Sullivan. Any volunteers?At the same time, Israel's actual resources of military and economic power far exceed Hamas's; and its pulverization of Gaza has led to a huge imbalance between the victims of Hamas's war on Israel and Israel's war on Hamas. The Palestinians are suffering something like ten times the trauma and deaths of Israelis. What they have endured in Gaza for the past couple of years must also be taken into account. It is not a function of appeasement or wimpiness or fondness for Jihadism that makes this conclusion inescapable. It is simply being human.
And so you have an excruciating confluence of the questions of proportionality in a just war and asymmetry in the war against terrorism. What renders the current awfulness particularly wrenching is that the immoral means Hamas uses are logical from the point of view of an entity that is committed to Israel's destruction but not powerful enough to achieve it. And the response of Israel is logical from the point of view of a Western country enduring constant terrorist bombardment. Hence the never-ending argument in which both extremes reinforce themselves. This is not, one remembers, a Likud government. This is what the center left needs to do in Israel to stay in power at this point. And it has the backing of Egypt.
The nature of the conflict therefore ensures that Israel will kill and injure and traumatize far more human beings than Hamas can, even though Israel's intentions may be more honorable (and the relative lack of civilian deaths, given the pounding that has been going on in Gaza, is striking evidence for Israel's relative scrupulousness). This means that Israel will continue to lose the war of ideas and that Hamas will benefit from the impasse. Meanwhile, Jewish Israelis face a demographic reckoning and the forces of Jihadism gain a new recruiting tool. Abbas is temporarily weakened; and Iran's ideological strength temporarily waxes. Democracy, pace the neocons, is not a panacea: Hamas has more democratic legitimacy, it seems to me, than Mubarak.
This is all horrible news for the Jewish people; and deeply disturbing for the rest of us. America's president and president-elect must ensure that the US is not drawn into this battle on one side or the other any more than is absolutely necessary. The West's interests in the Middle East are not exhausted by a defense of Israel's existence and security, especially when such a position comes allied with Arab autocracy and repression.
The one silver lining I can see is that Sunni Arab fear and loathing of Iran is still very real, and can be exploited. (If Arab powers are now reduced to acquiescing in the deaths of Palestinian children from Israeli bombs, you can see how vulnerable they feel toward the wave of religious extremism sweeping the region.) The best you can hope for in the Middle East is that one axis of hatred will temporarily eclipse another. Generally speaking, adherents of one religion hate each other more than they do adherents of another sect altogether, so the prospects for some advancement of Israeli and American self-interest in a broader Muslim civil war are real. With Muslim anti-Semitism, of course, we might have stumbled onto a rare exception.
How about a thoughtful blog post on the topic in Spanish that I should know about? (Perhaps Enrique Krauze has written something. I must venture over to the Letras Libres blogs ...)
***
Concuerdo con mi hermano Tom quién en una carta expresó que probablemente tiene razón Andrew Sullivan en su artículo citado arriba sobre las cuestiones éticas relacionadas con Gaza hoy en día.
Agradecería una traducción del texto citado de Sullivan al español. ¿Algún voluntario?
¿Y, alguien me puede dirigir a un artículo de blog bien meditado sobre este mismo tema pero en español? (Tal vez Enrique Krauze haya escrito algo. Habría que dar una vuelta a los blogs de Letras Libres ...)
Sorry to bother you here but it's one of my missions in life to correct ignorance about the Israel/Palestine conflict. I can't see what Sullivan "got right" about this except his own moral posturing.
ReplyDeleteAmerica's president and president-elect must ensure that the US is not drawn into this battle on one side or the other any more than is absolutely necessary. The West's interests in the Middle East are not exhausted by a defense of Israel's existence and security, especially when such a position comes allied with Arab autocracy and repression.
Where is this limit of the "absolutely necessary?" Sullivan obfuscates the situation unacceptably: Israel is fighting jihadism. Their fight is our fight. We're allies (or would be if it weren't for Sullivan and his acolytes). We were "drawn into this battle" because the jihadists declared war on us and attacked us, not because of the machinations of the Jewish lobby/International Jewry. The last sentence is nonsense given the above and especially given Obama's intentions of "engaging" repressive despotisms in the Middle East in the name of stability.
Israel continues to "lose the war of ideas"—the propaganda war—in spite of their control over the media and government via the Israel lobby. How is this possible? It's possible because antisemitism (along with anti Americanism) is the only politically-correct form of hatred there is. Antisemites and their apologists will take the Arab/Muslim side in this conflict because they hate Jews and—since the US supports Israel—they hate the US. Taking their side includes thinking that Sullivan's obfuscations "get it right." Of course, "some of his best friends are Jews." This is "polite" and "politically correct" antisemitism, not the vulgar "sons of apes and pigs" variety. It's based on a twisted intellectualoide analysis of geopolitics and proclaims its own virtue. But it's still antisemitism.
Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist in peace; Israel refuses to recognize Hamas' right to exist as a legitimate polity in Gaza because Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist.
This is moral opaqueness or at least moral translucency, not moral clarity. Hamas runs a police state; they adhere to genocidal goals with respect to Israel; deceit is their way of warfare. Israel will not negotiate with such an entity, nor should they, or should anyone else in their position. Israel should give up nothing in return for recognition of the right to exist. The right to exist does not depend on anyone's recognizing it. It's an inalienable natural right. If you disagree, then I have a deal for you: you give me rights over your business and I recognize your right to exist. Fair enough?
The people of Gaza have certainly endured trauma. But they voted for Hamas. They continue to support its goals. As Sullivan says, "Hamas has more democratic legitimacy, it seems to me, than Mubarak." This is not a good sign for Sullivan's brand of moral relativism.
"I have always been a supporter of rockets and all forms of resistance," said Aziz, the taxi driver. "But maybe Hamas needs to renew martyrdom operations instead," he said, referring to suicide attacks.
Hassan, the father of five, said there was little point in firing rockets if they were not effective.
"Rockets -- I think this issue needs to be stopped for sometime and restudied," he said. "Once we have a missile that can reach the heart of Tel Aviv and blow up a building, maybe they can resume fire."
The nature of the conflict therefore ensures that Israel will kill and injure and traumatize far more human beings than Hamas can, even though Israel's intentions may be more honorable (and the relative lack of civilian deaths, given the pounding that has been going on in Gaza, is striking evidence for Israel's relative scrupulousness).
Israel's intentions are self-defense against a genocidal police state. Hamas's intentions are to exterminate the state of Israel. There is no reason on earth to be so tentative—so relative—about whose intentions are more "honorable." This just reveals Sullivan's moral relativism in the service of antisemitism.
And so you have an excruciating confluence of the questions of proportionality in a just war and asymmetry in the war against terrorism.
The doctrine of proportionality does not mean that there should be a relatively equal amount of death and destruction for the war to be "just." It means that military objectives must be targeted in war and that the risk of civilian casualties must be "proportionate" to the value of the military target. If anyone uses the word like Sullivan does it shows either ignorance or Arab partisanship. Hamas rejects the entire concept of the "just war" from the Western perspective. They adhere to the Muslim way of war, which is based on deceit. Thus they can attack civilians (indiscriminate) for the sake of attacking civilians (not proportionate) with complete impunity under Sullivan's multicultural perspective. Hey, we can't demand that they accept our Western philosophies of war. That would be neo colonialist. The legal and moral problems of asymmetric warfare are real and must be addressed. But they won't be addressed by hysterical moral posturing like Sullivan's. Israel has confronted these problems more and longer than anyone else has. In the US, there is only piecemeal response driven by politics.
[T]he immoral means Hamas uses are logical from the point of view of an entity that is committed to Israel's destruction but not powerful enough to achieve it. And the response of Israel is logical from the point of view of a Western country enduring constant terrorist bombardment.
If this isn't moral relativism, then I give up. Sullivan forgot to mention that an entity committed to the destruction of another is immoral in itself; he forgot to mention that self-defense is a legitimate use of violence. As for the logic, that depends: if an Arab/Muslim state were threatened by a genocidal regime on its borders, then the "logical" response would be a bloodbath of genocidal proportions; if it were a Western nation, then the "logical" response would be "regime change" at the very least. If Israel is concerned, then the "logical" response is to "show restraint" and concern for the rights of those who preach and practice genocidal hatred of it.
I'm happy to translate Sullivan's text for you. But you have to pay me and recognize my right to exist.
I said above,
ReplyDeleteTheir fight is our fight. We're allies (or would be if it weren't for Sullivan and his acolytes). We were "drawn into this battle" because the jihadists declared war on us and attacked us, not because of the machinations of the Jewish lobby/International Jewry.
The Washington Post reports from Tehran:
At Tehran University, Meshal stressed the unity between Iran and Hamas. "We are in the same trench, facing Israeli and U.S. tyranny," he said. "We are with you, Sunnis and Shiites, to serve the interests of the Arab and Islamic communities."
So Hamas knows which side they're fighting on. Their battle lines are drawn quite clearly. Tom/Sullivan/you should take their word for it instead of alluding to being vaguely "drawn into" this battle.