[img]7|left|||no_popup[/img]
After a self-imposed partial news brownout – an attempt to regain some sanity after suffering post-election information withdrawal – Israel’s assault on Gaza inevitably made it through my anti-despair filters. And the more I learn, the more it’s clearly the same folly repeated over and over again. A few snippets from the Jan. 9 headlines at Democracy Now! (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/9/headlines#1) highlights the horror of a situation that we, comfortable in our living rooms, can scarcely take in:
“At least 60 percent of Gaza’s 1.4 million people have no electricity, and many are without clean water. Gaza’s fragile sewage system also risks collapse, stoking fears of a worsening health crisis.”
“Overall, the Palestinian death toll stands at at least 778, including more than 200 children. At least 3,250 Palestinians have been injured.”
“Thirteen Israelis have died over the same period, four by friendly fire.”
“U.N.: 30 Died in Israeli Shelling of Crowded Home. The Red Cross made the announcement as it accused Israel of blocking access to a bombing site where several emaciated children were found next to their dead mothers. Overall, dozens of dead civilians were found in a one-block span of the neighborhood of Zeitoun.”
“The Israeli attack is under increasing international criticism. On Thursday, a high-ranking Vatican official, Cardinal Renato Martino, compared Gaza to ‘a concentration camp.’”
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency put out a statement (http://www.un.org/unrwa/news/releases/pr-2009/jer_9jan09.html) that it:
“…put into effect a temporary suspension of movements of staff throughout the Gaza Strip, with serious consequences for its principal operations. This decision, taken after careful consideration of its humanitarian implications, was compelled by incidents in which UNRWA staff, convoys and installations have come under attack.
These incidents, including yesterday’s tragic loss of life, occurred as a result of a breakdown in the effectiveness of the humanitarian co-ordination mechanisms established in coordination with the Israeli authorities. On numerous occasions in recent days, humanitarian convoys have come under Israeli fire even though their safe passage through clearly designated routes at specifically agreed times, had been confirmed by the Israeli liaison office. Although UNRWA’s protests were met with renewed promises that there would be no further coordination failures, humanitarian access continued to be impeded by live-fire incidents.”
Supporting Israel is Politically Correct
News sources reveal the horror of Israel’s offensive – there are even reports (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece) of Israel’s use of white phosphorus in such a way as to be harming civilians – except here, where support for Israel is so unconditional that two rules summarize the politically correct way to interpret Israeli actions:
1. Israel is always right.
2. If Israel is wrong, see rule No. 1.
I’m not holding my breath, however, that U.S. politicians and the punditry will come to realize that to be critical of Israel’s actions is not to be hateful of it. Even Democrats are too busy bending over in support of Israel’s offensive lest the merest hint of criticism brings about a furious response. We’re just going to be stuck with the usual equivocation between a full-scale military offensive and clumsy, albeit undeniably terrifying and criminal, rocket attacks. The use of disproportionate amounts of force – 900 Palestinian dead (including 275 children) vs. 13 Israeli dead as of the latest numbers – highlights the vast difference between Israel, a wealthy, technology- advanced Goliath vs. impoverished, fractured Palestinians – but that difference won’t matter when terrorism is seen, not through a criminal paradigm, but through a military one, and strength of force gains more respect than the strength to make sacrifices and compromises for the sake of peace. Of course terrorism is wrong, and the Palestinians are wrong to use it as tool to effect change, but in regards to this offensive, Israel and its unconditional supporters need to have their moral compass recalibrated – 275 dead children!
But, oh, I know, I know, this is an old, circular discussion that won’t get anywhere. Israel and its supporters will continue to reject criticisms of Israel, Palestinians and their supporters will have the same attitude, and those of relative neutrals, sitting on our high horses, who just want all the suffering to come to end, will continue to scream and shout.
The Wrong Paradigm
My concern is really that we may be missing the point because of the language we use. The word “war,” for example, whether it’s a war on terrorism or the Iraq War. Neither the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians nor Iraqi insurgents and U.S. forces fit the model of conventional warfare we get from, say, the World Wars. It’s not a case of army facing against army. In fact, there’s a term for it: asymmetrical warfare, that is, warfare between two forces of different natures and compositions. This means the usual analyses don’t hold up, and referring to these conflicts as war instead of, say, counter-insurgency (Iraq) or counter-terrorism (Israel) translates into the wrong expectations.
While it’s popular to think of war as politics by other means, there’s a danger in confusing military objectives, and the methods needed to meet them, with political objectives and their own methods. The relationship between the political and the military can be extraordinarily complex, of course. Yet equivocating them is risky in terms of developing sensible policies. Israel has been relying on its military for decades, yet despite its obvious superiority has been unable to achieve stability. Similarly, U.S. forces – neo-con fantasies notwithstanding – militarily defeated Saddam Hussein’s army, yet became quagmired in a chaotic political environment that nurtured an insurgency. The problem facing both Israel and Iraq is centered on getting people to find a way of living together peaceably. In other words, the problem isn’t one of warfare, but of politics. It’s about developing the social infrastructure that allows people in conflict to resort to non-violent means of resolving their disputes, as well as find ways to join together in areas of mutual interest. Using the methods of conventional warfare against an unconventional opponent in a political conflict will not accomplish any of these things. You might as well try to clean windows with a sledgehammer.
Frédérik invites you to discuss this week's column and more at his blog (frederik-sisa.blogspot.com).
