on facebook, organizations and movements sometimes create mini-applications to donate your status to their cause. for example, i donated my status to an election day movement that encouraged people to vote. the application automatically updates your status so it appears near the top of your friends' news feeds and attracts their attention. recently, hawkish pro-israel supporters started a "QassamCount" mini-application that updates your status to count the number of qassam rockets sent into israel.
for example, today's qassam count status writes, "QassamCount: At least 16 Hamas rockets hit Israel Saturday. 2 rockets hit houses in the city of Ashkelon."
there is no doubt that hamas rockets sent indiscriminately into israel were wrong and dangerous and should be considered offensive attacks. we must condemn them. hamas says that they want to destroy israel, and we should believe them. violence against israeli civilians is hateful and unjust. the qassamcounts aren't offensive because they are lies. i accept that the qassamcounts are probably true. (that palestinian militants continue to shoot missiles into southern israel, by the way, undermines the central mission of israel's offensive to stop rocket fire into israel proper.)
instead, i think the qassamcounts are offensive because they are so blind and deaf to real reality right now. the israeli response, in ten days of fighting, has killed more than 800 palestinians. an ap report says that just about half of that total has been civilians.
when i was a student at the university of michigan, i participated in a debate between pro-israel and pro-palestinian supporters. no hawkish pro-israel supporter accepted the invitation so a friend of mine asked me to participate. yes, the organization consistently highlighted what they felt were unjust acts committed against palestinians. and yes, the pro-palestinian supporters often undermined or rejected or ignored sensible arguments that highlighted israeli concerns or losses.
i hope that my ideas were thoughtful enough to persuade people that people who support an israeli state are not hateful or unjust. we also hope and pray for peace and justice. yet, i remember this moment, after all, because i remember that several pro-israel supporters strenuously argued that my debate helped legitimize the group's complaints and concerns. they argued that my participation amplified the group's hateful beliefs.
unfortunately, i think the same faulty reasoning lies at the heart of this conflict. there are two whole, parallel narratives that define the israeli-palestinian conflict. it is not my right to judge and dismiss either narrative. i have no power to legitimize or deligitimize someone's beliefs and opinions. in fact, the idea that we should not even talk (TALK!) with someone else because it will legitimize their opinions is so completely offensive and arrogant. in contrast, our democracy is centrally based on the free exchange of free ideas. second, when we boycott dialogue with our enemies, we also boycott the only mechanism that can lead to peaceful progress. we must talk to create peace, and we must create peace.
now. right right now.
the world needs to mobilize an immediate ceasefire and a binding resolution that refers any aggression to an international force. israel has a right to protect her citizens, but she does not have the right to lay waste to palestinian civilians. because the nature of gaza limits any opportunity for a just military action, the only just solution is an international agreement with international support for an international military force to govern the borders.
strong critics contend that israel has committed war crimes. israel has not committed war crimes. there is no holocaust. there is no question, in my opinion, that israel pursues a humane war. they hunt military targets. they try to limit causalities by projecting their advances. they drop leaflets and make radio addresses to warn civilians. they launch sound bombs as early warning signals. they have established a humanitarian corridor to alleviate some suffering. i wholly believe this is true.
however, war is not a perfectly clean operation. in fact, the very nature of war in the densely packed gaza strip insures horrific mistakes. yes, hamas fighters endanger palestinian civilians while they hide inside densely packed civilian areas. yet, we know that even precises strikes will endanger civilians. in fact, israeli strikes have misfired and accidentally killed more than 400 civilians. while i am completely certain israel does not target civilians, they have shown a basic indifference to their clear mistakes. a un school. a complete city block. whole families.
the war in gaza inhumane and unjust. it cannot be otherwise. how do you fight a war against a hateful enemy that will cause you to kill unarmed civilians in a densely packed urban area?
you don't fight it. you organize an international coalition to enforce peace.
i support israel, but i do not support this war. i believe in israel, but i do not believe in this war. i love israel, but i do not love this war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i really love how you express yourself so thoughtfully. but i guess my question is this: is there ever a case, in your mind, when war is justified? war by definition kills. and not just men-in-arms, of course. civilian deaths are impossible to avoid, now and certainly in wars past, without such sophisticated technology. so, is there ever a time when war is justified? and just? and if so, what would those circumstances be? i mean, if the allied forces ever would have been inclined to bomb the gas chambers at auschwitz, and they went ahead and did so, killing some townspeople in nearby oswiecim while they were at it? would that have been just?
ReplyDeleteap, thanks for reading our blog! i'm also glad that we can have thoughtful conversations around the issue, you know? it really disappoints me that so many conversations break down so quickly. i know some really smart people that just fall apart in conversations on isreal-palestine.
ReplyDeletei, personally, believe in non-violence. i don't believe there is any way to peace except peace.
that said, of course, there are necessary wars that ultimately save more lives than they waste. there's no question there are any amount of military actions that are just, even in our time. (war in afghanistan was just, for example. war in iraq was not.)
i'd note, though, that your example of a just war is a straw man argument. in the same way that israel is not committing a holocaust, hamas is also not setting up gas chambers. i know that that's not exactly what you meant, but what i mean is that it's more apples to oranges.
if there is a just war, that does not necessarily mean that this is a just war.
i have tried to be really clear about this: i support israel. i really do believe in israel. in fact, i believe that criticism can strengthen patriotism.
at the same time, i'm seriously concerned about three things: 1) the loss of civilian life, 2) israel's short-term political goals cannot be achieved by short-term military operations in gaza, 3) and that israel's security is ultimately harmed by this war, long term.
there is no doubt that these incursions are most successful than the incursion into southern lebanon, for a host of reasons, beginning with the fact that we went into southern lebanon and learned from the mistakes. and there's no doubt that israel has clearly and convincingly degraded hamas capability.
still, i believe israel cannot achieve her military objective through force. indeed, i'm trying to say that the "qassamcount" application actually highlights how ineffective this war is at its primary objective: stopping the missiles. in fact, it can ulitmately only ever be done by an international agreement.
i feel like israel actually understands all these things. they've also made a short term calculus: these guys hate us. we're not losing any fans there. we're gonna get an agreement anyway. in the meantime, let's take this opportunity to really get something done we've needed to do since hamas has had rule in gaza.
the larger problem is this war, this war is inherently unjust. it is impossible to fight a just war, this war, this time, this way.
we can start peace now. this war is not peace.
sure, you're right - it's apples to oranges. it wasnt meant as a direct comparison. but just on a side, i really dont believe hamas is any diff. than the nazis. their end goal is the same: get rid of the jews. but that's aside.
ReplyDeleteso i totally hear you. you just basically think all war is unjust. it's hard to argue with that. i'm not sure why afghanistan was just but israel going after hamas isn't. how many civilian afghans have been killed since the u.s. went after the taliban back in 2001/2? who decides which wars are just and which arent?
i guess what rankles so many ppl. (and what spurns stuff like the qassamcounts) is that for years there is not a peep from anyone - the media, the un, etc., etc. - about the fact that israelis live under a barrage of rocket attacks. but when they finally turn around and try to do something, everyone all of a sudden cries "unjust!" where were the cries before?? the other thing is that pro-palestinian sympathizers make a moral equiavalency between israel and hamas. israel bombing targets in gaza is NOT the same as hamas showering rockets on civilians. isnt israel allowed to do whatever's necessary to protect its citizens without being condemned? the double-standard is infuriating. if france or britain or any other country would be attacked DAILY for years on end it would seem absolutely absurd if they didn't turn around and kick the crap out of whomever was attacking them. civilians die in war. especially when the enemy purposely puts civilians in front of their 'soldiers.' i know you know all this, i do. i'm just venting a little bit, too. :)
in iraq, more than 4000 american servicemen and women have been killed since 2003. officials estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 soldiers have been injured and wounded. estimates (iraqbodycount.org) count almost 100,000 iraqi civilian deaths from hostilities. a september 2006 survey in lancet estimated that more that 600,000 iraqi civilians were killed. there's no way to know for sure, of course, but the numbers are outrageous.
ReplyDeletewhen you take into consideration that iraq did not attack or aid and abet an attack on the united states, it's genuinely horrific.
it's not for me to judge the right to go to war. what i'm arguing is the ultimate civilian costs of the war in iraq are immoral and unjust.
(so why did i hesitate to protest the iraq war at the time? first, that's a question that still bothers me. but, second, because i felt that a potential liberation would lead to greater freedom, freedom that outweighed and outnumbered the possible consequences. i couldn't support the war, but the idea of free education and free speech for women and children and the poor seemed possible. of course, it's an impossible arithmetic after all, and i really wish i had.)
in contrast, approximately 600 US soldiers have died in operation enduring freedom, and roughly 1000 civilians have died in afghanistan due to US and NATO attacks. still, more than 3000 civilians have died due to insurgent/taliban attacks (human rights watch) and, of course, approximately 3000 americans died in the world trade center bombings.
i am not arguing that i get to choose just wars and unjust wars. i'm just a guy who probably believes too much in what he believes to begin with i'm really just trying to argue that we need to stop now. the numbers don't add up in iraq and in gaza.
in fact, it is probably absolutely impossible to invade gaza without this significant civilian death toll, now upwards of 500 civilians. in contrast to 3 israeli civlians it is completely disproportionate.
this is why i've tried to say that the war is justified but unjust. if someone hits me in the face, i may be justified in hitting them back, but i'm asking, first, to what end do we hit right back? second, does hitting back solve this problem? and third, do i have a right to then hit his entire family and take all of his things?
it is always possible that israel continues on and above their original mission decides to reoccupy gaza, but most believe this isn't practical or likely. so we know this will end in a ceasefire that is not durable, that does not lead to peace, and that does not weaken hamas.
then, the question is not whether israel had the right. i don't think many people question that. i think the question is, is the war right at all?
could we have pursued diplomatic activites before the war to engage the world? could we have stopped after the first phase and engaged the world for our objectives? could we have stoppoed after the second phase of the war? can't we stop right now?