Israel's Policy Of Freezing Gaza
The latest news from Gaza is that Israel's Minister of Defense Ehud Barak has pledged that starting now even the transfer of medicines and humanitarian aid into Gaza would be allowed "only in exceptional circumstances."
He said that the IDF "will carry out continued, decisive actions with the goal of battering the Kassam crews until they can no longer target Israel. It won't be simple and it won't happen by the end of the week, but we will bring an end to the assault on Sderot."
Does Barak really believe that it is the Kassam crews that he is freezing and denying medicine to?
Watching the television news from Israel, it is clear that it isn’t. It’s regular people. It’s kids.
It is always a little jarring to watch news reports from Gaza in which the Palestinians comment on their situation in fluent Hebrew. There they are, the supposed enemies of the Jews, easily speaking the Jewish national language, a language hardly any Jews here in the states can manage a sentence in. For me, hearing Palestinians describe their suffering in Hebrew makes it all the more real.
Israel has been under a terrible cold spell for the past several days, which means that Gaza has been too. The difference is that people in Tel Aviv and Haifa are safe and warm (except for the very poor, a growing segment of Israel's population). The people of Gaza are suffering terribly.
Israel has been reducing fuel supplies to Gaza since December in response to the Kassam rocket attacks on Sderot and also as part of the policy of squeezing Hamas.
Gaza is totally dependent on Israeli supplies of fuel: gasoline for cars, gas for cooking, and diesel fuel to operate generators, hospitals, and public utilities, including Gaza's sole electrical plant. Europeans finance the fuel itself but Israel controls Gaza's borders and it decides how much fuel can get in.
The Independent, the UK newspaper, reported this week that "diesel levels have now dropped from the usual 300-320,000 liters a day to 190,000, petrol from 80-100,000 to 47,000, and industrial fuel, including for the solitary Gaza power station, from 280,000 to 250,000."
It reports that the cuts have already left 220,000 Gaza residents without running water for more than a single hour a day. The streets are empty of cars and there is a huge demand for donkeys to replace them. In short, a modern, although poverty-ridden society, is being pushed into the Third World.
The fuel cutoff does not make the news here. We see the rocket attacks on Sderot and the Israeli retaliations against Hamas fighters. We do not see shivering kids and nursing mothers, young people whose jobs disappeared along with the fuel, or the elderly who are contracting infections and dying. Imagine trying to take care of an infant or an aged grandparent in the depth of winter with no heat. It is an awful thing to contemplate.
I cannot imagine any justification for freezing kids in Gaza, just as I can't imagine any justification for traumatizing kids with incessant rocket attacks in Sderot.
That is why I will not criticize Israel for going after the terrorists who are inflicting these horrors on its citizens.
But the people freezing in Gaza are not the people bombing Sderot. They are simply people who are being punished for the actions of a government they may – or may not have – voted for.
Assume the worst. Assume that they did vote for Hamas. Does that mean they should be denied the necessities of life? What about kids and babies?
I recall a conversation I had with a Canadian back during the Vietnam War. We were in Israel together. And he was very unfriendly. I asked him what his problem was and he told me that he "despised" Americans. He said that he believed we were committing "war crimes" in Vietnam and he "hated" us for it.
I told him that blaming a random group of American kids, almost all of who had demonstrated against the war, was outrageous. His response was. "America is a democracy. All Americans are responsible for the actions of a government you elected."
I thought that argument was obscene then and I think the same now. Happily the self-righteous student could only snub my friends and me; he couldn't hurt us. No big deal.
But freezing people is a very big deal. And I don't see that it accomplishes anything.
The leaders of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad surely have enough fuel to keep themselves snug and warm. Leaders invariably are protected from the consequences of their actions.
Even if the people of Gaza rose up and tried to stop the shelling of Sderot, does anyone believe they could? Here, in this great established democracy, the clear majority of Americans that wants an end to the Iraq war are incapable of bringing it about. Palestinian democracy, rudimentary at best, is infinitely less reflective of popular will. We can hardly expect Gazans to take policy into their own hands.
Humanitarian concerns dictate an end to the punishment of ordinary Palestinians, but so does international law.
Under international law, occupying nations are responsible for the welfare of the local population. Although the Israeli army left Gaza, along with the civilian settlements, Israel still controls Gaza's borders, its air corridors, and its sea lanes. To put it bluntly, the difference between people in a prison and people who are free is that free people control their own destinies. By no definition do Gazans control theirs.
Accordingly, Israel may not punish an entire people whose fate lies entirely under its control. But it is doing it anyway.
The only thing accomplished by punishing innocent people is the punishing of innocent people. That's it. But the collateral damage is huge. It damages Israel's reputation worldwide. It makes negotiating more difficult for President Abbas, who considers himself responsible for the well-being of all Palestinians although he does not control Gaza. And it clearly endangers the life of Corporal Gilad Shalit, the captured Israeli soldier.
Furthermore, it hastens the day when Israel will have to all-out invade Gaza, an eventuality the military fears would be more difficult than the US action in Mogadishu. And it raises the very real possibility that Hamas will be replaced by Al Qaeda, which would love to have Gaza as its capital for worldwide terror.
So what should Israel do about Sderot?
Writing in Thursday's Washington Post, Robert Malley, President Clinton's adviser on Middle East affairs who was a key player at Camp David in 2000, and Professor Hussein Agha, of Oxford University, an expert in Palestinian issues, offered recommendations.
"Synchronicity is key," they write." The Israeli government, President Abbas and Hamas all need to act in parallel and simultaneously.
"Fatah and Hamas will need to reach a new political arrangement, this time not one vigorously opposed by Israel. Hamas and Israel need to achieve a cease-fire and prisoner exchange, albeit mediated by Abbas. And Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will need to negotiate a political deal with Abbas, who will have to receive a mandate to do so from Hamas."
Israelis and Palestinians, and their supporters abroad, must "cast aside their dysfunctional, destructive, ideologically driven policies. Instead, they should encourage a choreography that minimizes violence and promotes a serious diplomatic process. Otherwise, no matter how many times President Bush travels to the region, there is no reason to believe that 2008 will offer anything other than the macabre pattern of years past."
You don’t break the cycle of violence by hurting your enemies’ children. On the contrary, you guarantee that it continues.
MJ: Why is this obscene? " I told him that blaming a random group of American kids, almost all of who had demonstrated against the war, was outrageous. His response was. "America is a democracy. All Americans are responsible for the actions of a government you elected."
So only the citizens of undemocratic societies are responsible for their goverments?
If Palestinians can be subject to collective punishments for Hamas, surely every Israeli should be subject to collective shunning for the actions of the IDF.
January 18, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"So only the citizens of undemocratic societies are responsible for their goverments?"
Read the post. MJ clearly said that Gazans were even LESS responsible for the actions of their leaders and government.
January 18, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did read the post. It is called pointing our irony.
January 18, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a tricky question. Am I responsible for what we are doing in Iraq? I hope not. It seems to me that the logic here leads to defending the murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11 because, as Americans, they are responsible for what is done in our name in the Middle East.
I reject that thinking.
January 18, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is why we have international norms, which reject precisely the type of collective punishment that Israel is applying to Gaza. (Even so, I'm sure the USA would veto any UN Resolution condemning it as "unbalanced." UN Rules are for the little people.)
Since 9/11, we have created this totally false standard: Just apply the world "terrorism" to any situation, and all international rules no longer apply.
January 18, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You realize you're agreeing... right?
January 18, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Kozmik. Sometimes echoes are helpful.
January 18, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just checkin.
January 18, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I reject that thinking too.
Sadly, all too many people don't.
January 19, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
mjrosenberg,
The answer depends upon how we approach responsibility. From my own perspective, while we are not directly accountable for specific policy decisions, we are collectively responsible for the quality of leadership that determines and implements those policies. Whatever level we choose to engage the democratic process, positively or negatively, activist or cynical, by commission or omission, we own the consequences.
January 20, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bar Kafka said:
I disagree, its not that simple. I see myself as a liberal and as such the last Republican I voted for was Ike, but I voted for him because I served under him and knew him personally, and also because I was politically unsophisticated at the time.
I take no responsibility, collective or otherwise, for the 6 years of the "quality of leadership" brought to us by Bush and his gang, along with the Republican House, and Senate.
January 20, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ike's most prescient statement: 'Beware the Military Industrial Complex.'
The hydra-like growth of the MIC is a direct refutation of the idealism that Bar Kafka espouses; black budgets and multi-billion dollar weapons decisions made with little or no oversight often have repercussions that are both against the interests and beyond the influence of the American people.
January 20, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
leftAhead,
"Idealism," really? Let me express it another way. If we cannot individually bring ourselves to accept a share of the responsibility for the quality of our leadership, then as participants in a viable electorate, what is the point of even discussing any of this?
January 22, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The principle of collective punishment is considered a crime, last I heard, and as HCB often reminded us. It is functionally identical to the terrorist policy of attacking where one can, not where one should, or would prefer.
Since Israel can't easily find and attack or interdict the rocket engineers and firing crews, it is punishing everyone, hoping to coerce them into stopping the rocket activity. If we describe this as understandable, we cannot describe the same strategy as employed by the rocket crews as terrorism, only as pressure on Israel's population, and whose goal is to coerce Israel into changing its practices.
January 18, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The sad conclusion is that there is no consensus that either collective punishment(how does that differ from WW II's "saturation bombing"?) or terrorism is a crime. Or torturing prisoners.
Just things civilians say to one another in peace time ,never mentioned when in war
against an always unspeakable opponent who doesn't merit such precious discriminations..
Herod
"Civilization must be saved even if this means sending for the military , as I suppose it does. How dreary. Why is it that in the end civilisation always has to call in these profesional tidiers to whom it is all one whether it be Pythagoras or a homicidal lunatic they are instructed to exterminate. O dear, Why couldn't this wretched infant be born somewhere else?Why can't people be sensible ........I object . I'm a liberal. I want everyone to be
happy, I wish I had never been born."
W.H. Auden
For the Time Being-The Slaughter of the Innocents
January 20, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The sad conclusion is that there is no consensus that either collective punishment(how does that differ from WW II's "saturation bombing"?) or terrorism is a crime. Or torturing prisoners.
Actually, the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention says, not the less widely ratified 1977 additional protcol:
There is a very tricky concept, in international law as seen by tribunals as well as treaties, of "military necessity". There are also political realities.
Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, chief of RAF Bomber Command, had an explicit policy of what he called "dehousing": attacking areas of homes of German industrial workers. He firmly believed this was the best way to beat Germany, even when his nominal superior, Sir Charles Portal, asked him to attack the German oil industry. Portal, but not Harris, were indoctrinated into the ULTRA communications intelligence compartment; Portal knew that the oil industry was close to collapse. Harris, however, was a favorite of Churchill, and they managed to bring out the bloodthirstiness in each other.
The reality was that the aircraft of Bomber Command, other than special units such as 617 Squadron ("The Dam-Busters") could not, with any accuracy, bomb a target any smaller than part of a city. British aircraft carried a heavier bombload than contemporary US bombers, but less defensive armament; the US could marginally survive in daylight attacks with greater precision (i.e., they might get their bombs mostly onto a refinery).
Military necessity also came up with not assisting the survivors of submarine attacks.
There has been enough declassification of US nuclear strategy to establish that cities were not generally targeted, and, when there was a key headquarters in a city, it was to be hit with as limited an attack as possible. Since there were alternate targeting modes to maximize casualties (see Herman Kahn's On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios, with attention to counterforce with avoidance, unmodified counterforce, and counterforce with bonus).
It is hard to claim military necessity for area attacks at the present time, when a "routine" Joint Direct Action Munition guided bomb will hit, 50% of the time, within a 10 meter circle. With supplemental GPS or laser guidance, the circle drops to around 3 meters or less.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 20, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And even while the bombng cost effectivity study by Galbraith,George Ball and others was concluding that the targetted industrial bombing was only maginally useful our philosophical /religious leaders competed to be most unqualified in support of main street rgious
January 20, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have read the Strategic Bombing Surveys to which you refer, both for the European and Pacific theaters, and I would have to say effectiveness of industrial bombing then was more technology limited than anything else. What was clear was that population bombing, again with the available technology, was not effective in breaking morale, just in spreading misery. While it isn't a perfect analogy, WWII population bombing, while more lethal than the rockets from Gaza, was not an existential threat.
On the one hand, large-scale nuclear war, as opposed to a few bombs, was such a threat. On the other hand, there was a clue to industrial bombing in the effectiveness of fighter-bomber cover in Europe, and in the early use of precision guided munitions against bridges in North Vietnam: when there started to be a high probability of hitting the specific target. Tactical nuclear weapons were an aberration, in which a local area would be devastated in order to be sure of getting a moderately-sized tank force.
It isn't necessary to send out a thousand-plane raid, with 10 man crews, to get in the general vicinity of a refinery, when there is a high probability of putting a bomb in the main control panel. Especially the homemade rockets are about as accurate as WWII area bombing.
Effectiveness, however, doesn't seem to be important to either side in the I-P conflict.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 20, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
You consistently focus on discussing pertinent facts while I endlessly revert to my pessimistic view of war time human nature. Think of the Daily Mail's "Gotcha" headline when the Belgrano sank.And, sadly of far too much of what I read here about Palestine. From both sides altho of course our user mix results in more dehumanizing of Muslims than of Israelis.
At the safe distance of decades we bravely disapprove of FDR's then unchallenged imprisoning of the Nisei in 1942. As if we'd hesitate for a moment to repeat it. Watch out you Iranian- americans!
January 21, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a reminder of the complicated nature of wartime decisions, I knew the man responsible for finding homes in the Midwest and East for young Japanese men. Milton Eisenhower administered a program that placed employable Japanese in homes around the US, and found jobs for them. I knew the man who worked on it at the detail level, Tom Holland, later an economics professor at Georgetown.
January 21, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
distorted.
Should read "in support of that saturation bombing" .
January 21, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me be sure I understand you; I tend to avoid the term "saturation bombing", which wasn't all that achievable in WWII. The British, given the capabilities of their aircraft, targeted large areas such as a good-sized portion of a city. The Americans could target a fair-sized factory, but only specialists (mostly RAF 617 Squadron) could go for anything remotely resembling a point target. Once there were forward airfields that could support fighter bombers, tactical accuracy increase (in WWII terms).
If I understand you correctly, population bombing was of minimal or no effectiveness.
Industrial bombing had the potential of being more effective, but the Allies, according to the Germans, would not stay on one target system long enough to destroy it at all costs. The raids on the ball bearing factories at Schweinfurt, for example, had a very high Allied casualty rate, but the debriefed Germans said a few more raids would have shortened the war. They had similar comments on synthetic rubber and other manufacturing categories.
Part of the Allied problem was that until fairly late in the war, they had relatively little information on how the Germans were affected by the bombing, from a high-level German view. Eventually, there was enough intercepted and decrypted communications to know that their oil industry was close to failure, and the US switched all strategic missions to it, keeping back some bombers for general support of combat. Harris, however, refused Portal's strong pleading to attack oil -- the British custom was that top level commanders gave "strong suggestions" to the next lower levels, but it was up to senior generals to decide what to do.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 21, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. In particular I remember the conclusion that Hamburg production increased afterwards-possibly because there were fewer Gasthauses open.
I wonder about Japan . Not just tne atom bombs but also the even more deadly fire bombing of Tokyo. Given the complicated maneuvering required by the peace faction in Aug 45 it seems to me that without tht "population bombing" the war would have continued. And who knows whether the the peace faction would have been strengthened or weakened by an actual invasion of the sacred homeland. I've always felt Truman was correct.For the sake of both countries.
Switching from tragedy to farce, I have a remote connection with Schweinfurt. It was occupied by the unit in which I later served. The officers' wives came over ,living in commandeered german homes,and started...... a drama society: The Schweinfurt Players. Some of its funds disappeared and years after we'd left Schweinfurt I sat on a courts martial trying to find someone to punish. We didnt.
Somehow seemed fitting. Schweinfurt wins again.
January 22, 2008 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, let me thank you for discussing this in a substantive way, with real historical references. Certainly on this blog, I've seen many condemnations of the nuclear attacks as war crimes, but there seemed to be no knowledge of the fire bombings.
Second, I do believe that the psychological effect of the nuclear attacks, not on the population in general but Hirohito above all, and some advisors, speeded peace. There are people that talk that would fit well in a Western country, about popular sentiment and protecting the populace, but one must remember that the Army hardliners were quite willing to use up the population in last-ditch suicidal attacks by unskilled people.
Third, the peace faction is an interesting discussion itself. Ironically, the most important single thing that kept them from making more headway was FDR's offhand reference, which became policy, to unconditional surrender. The actual surrender had one condition, the preservation of the Throne, which, if offered earlier, would have strengthened the peace faction.
Might a dialogue have started with the Zacharias broadcasts? There's no way of knowing, but it is an interesting consideration if it could have led to a surrender a few months earlier. When a limited dialogue began, there was unfortunate word choice, and translation, of the Japanese word mokusatsu, which was assumed to mean ignoring proposals, but could equally well have been translated that they were being studied and they would eventually been answered.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 22, 2008 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are there any NGO's or other groups that are able to offer aid in these sorts of situations? I mean from what I have read it's getting to the point where a Berlin Airlift-type mission isn't entirely out of the question.
January 18, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
What they need to do is have a Greenpeace flotilla sail toward Gaza with food. And see if the Israeli Navy sinks it....
Just as the post-WWII refugees flooded into Palestine and dared the British to shoot them on the beach, it's time for the civilized people of the world to start flaunting Israel's seige.
January 18, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the IDF would give ample warning, before sinking such a ship. They've run over unarmed women with bulldozers, shot UN workers, and used cluster bombs on civilian areas. Israel maintains 'the right to exist' and to 'defend itself' against all such threats.
January 18, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Berlin Airlift depended on several situations that did not apply here. First, there were air corridors to Berlin in which the Soviets had agreed Western aircraft could fly, never expecting that they could achieve the intensity they did. The Airlift was a huge industrial operation, admittedly with what we would today consider light transport aircraft, but, IIRC, landing at the 3 Berlin airports about 3 minutes apart. That's not something any NGO can do; a more representative NGO situation is the vehicle convoy that goes into Darfur about every two weeks, and is just strong enough to resist irregular raiders.
Second, even though the Soviets did harass transports in the corridors, most of the transport pilots had combat experience and weren't going to be deterred by simple harassment. At the same time, both sides knew that the West was quite prepared to escalate with fighter escort.
Third, nuclear weapons were brought into the theater, based in the UK, and word was carefully leaked to the Soviets. IIRC, that part of the operation was code-named TOP HAT. It constituted a truly serious deterrent.
Much as Gandhi observed that nonviolent resistance worked only against an enemy with whom some cultural norms applied here, no NGO can ensure transport in the face of efficient military counteraction.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 20, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good piece.Many Israelis are shamed at what we are doing but not enough.Barak's only aim is to position himself to the right of Olmert.He loses not a minute of sleep over these children.
January 18, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I hope sane Israelis have the courage to stop the madness. I think they should realize it's in their self interest to think about the reputation they have globally, and take to the streets daily till this ends.
Israelis, of all people in the world, should know better than to become known for collective punishment in occupied lands.
It's hard to think of anything more damaging to Israel's founding premise and global support. The world being as it is and people what they are, the last thing Israel wants to do it feed global antisemitism and have Israel become a ghetto between a hostile Europe, hostile US, and hostile M.E.
Sane Israelis ought to wake up to and change course before it's too late. Kibitzing the government doesn't seem to be accomplishing much.
January 18, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we begin with the fact that the current Israeli government and the IDF support the West Bank settlements and are completely unwilling to withdraw to the green line then their current policy is really the only option open. It seems clear to any sentient that the Palestinians will not accept the status quo and will engage in violence to resist the occupation. Israel must do something in response to this violence. It appears that the transfer option is not available to Israel today, maybe tomorrow, but not today. Genocide is not an option either. Then how does one break the will of the Palestinians? It seems that collective punishment that is designed to make life unbearable is the only tactic remaining. This has to be very carefully calibrated, or as Weissglass quipped we will put them on a diet. If too severe then excess deaths from disease and malnutrition could produce an international backlash that could give impetus to sanctions and boycotts against Israel. If not severe enough, then this would leave behind masses of very angry, not demoralized Palestinians.
Quite frankly I do not believe that this will work. I also do not believe that Israel is willing to withdraw from the settlements. This war is designed to go on indefinitely. Based on past experience it seems that the US really cannot impose a solution here. That is why I have continually argued that the only rational thing for the US is to simply back away. No more financial support for the IDF, no more US troops fighting wars for Israel. All we really can do is watch the warring tribes of the ME fight it out and hope that our side wins. Our interventions have come to no good.
January 18, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, Israel needs to withdraw those settlements. Those settlers are crazy, and have no concept of what's good for Israel in the long term. That a fringe of kooks have been allowed to dominate Israel policy for so long shows a real complacency in Israeli moderates to do anything.
Which btw, in all fairness, we can also say about the US. And look where it's gotten us. Luckily we're not at war with Canada too.
January 18, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you are not assuming that "our side" means Israel. That kind of thinking is why America's strategic position in the ME is in free fall.
January 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
When it comes right down to it Israel is our side. We have more in common with them than we do with the Arab nations -- common culture, common traditions, they are a nation of primarily European immigrant settlers as are we. I have yet to meet an Israeli that is not fluent in English. If worse came to worse over there I think the US would be a good place to locate a displaced Israeli population.
We just have to admit that we do not control their fate, it is up to them and, for our own national self interest, we should back out.
January 18, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, to a large extent we do "control thier fate." Israel gets a huge military subsidy from the US every year. Their entire population is only about 7 million people, which is smaller than many cities. Israel was formed from the beginning to be a European/American proxy and beachhead in the M.E.
That some people imagine Israel was founded to be a Jewish homeland out of sympathy after WWII... :rolleyes: Talk about naive.
Before WWII had even ended Allied powers started carving up the map, installing proxies, and securing resources for the cold war, throughout the world, but especially in the ME, SE Asia, and Latin America. I.e. every place having resources without conventional military power, that the larger powers had been trying to conquer in WWI and WWII and the latter half of the 19th century.
Rather than the British or US troops continuing to occupy the M.E. it was easier to let proxies and European Jews do it and let them take the heat for occupying Arab lands.
It's a travesty all around.
January 19, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik,
So, here we are in the USA, in the primary season of an election year that has already revealed the promise of high levels of participation. This is the window of opportunity for the electorate to make its concerns known to those who would engineer our foreign policy into an uncertain future. What do you plan to do to make this an issue, and how do you advise others to coordinate those concerns into coherent interests?
Personally, I like to draw comparisons between the international arms trade and domestic gun control. It's not a popular issue where I live and work, but it has generated some interesting conversation about both foreign and domestic policies and expanded upon the tired old perennial subjects of crime and taxes.
January 20, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't give a damn how much we Americans supposedly have in common with the Israelis. That may have been true in 1948, but whatever disease has spread violence throughout the Middle East seems to have converted the Israelis into nothing more than simply another primitive middle eastern tribe. They somehow have ceased to be European settlers, unless you want to equate "European" with the Serbs who were ethnically cleansing parts of the old Yugoslavia.
MJ is correct that starving mothers, children and the elderly creates further violence. It doesn't stop it. It's like when a parent gets mad at something a child has done and strikes the child for it. That doesn't change the child's behavior except to teach the kid to hide his own anger from the parent and to not get caught. Hitting a kid when a parent is angry is just revenge, nothing else. It has no positive purpose, and a lot of negative results.
That's what starving the Gazan population is. It is revenge, not a solution to the rockets. There is no possibility of a positive outcome from preventing food and medicine to the population, and it will create Jihadists and guerrillas.
Revenge is the practice of the angry and the hopeless people who don't think improvement is possible.
January 19, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
syvanen,
Have you met those Israelis here (assuming you are writing from North America), or have you traveled over there?
January 20, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, silly statement on my part, my sample was highly biased.
January 20, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
deleted
January 20, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The solution to this problem lies in disarming these radical militias (including Hamas) that all run their own foreign policy. There will never be peace, until then. It's going to require boots on the ground in Gaza to secure it. So, when the int'l community does more than talk about peace and takes some tough action, Palestinians may have a shot at a better life.
January 18, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brook - It will be "interesting" to see if the West Bank settler militias are also disarmed. Some of them have armories that would make Hamas envious.
While I agree that all militias must be disarmed in order for peace to prevail, a political settlement that is just and fair must be part of the same deal. If the Palestinians are disarmed and there is no peace agreement in place, Israel will forget about peace and keep doing what they have done for decades - whatever they want. I remember the later 70's and 80's (prior to 1987) when the Palestinians were demonstrating peacefully, and begging, for their own state and Israel just ignored them and continued to build settlements.
My major concern is if the Palestinians have no power or threat, Israel will continue to do business as usual. I am convinced without the deadly Hezballah resistance, Israel would still be occupying southern Lebanon today. I do not expect to see the occupation end in my lifetime, or even my childrens'. The current low grade warfare is less costly to Israel than giving up Judea and Samaria and the rendering of Israeli society that the war with the settlers would cause.
January 19, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The IDF needs to choose whether they are the settler's de facto militia in the WB or obligated to obey the directives of the polical leadership in Israel. Who among those seeking to be PM could credibly change the facts on the ground in the WB? Livni? Barak? Both?
Sharon could and did command the IDF. Tzipi Livni is a part of his legacy.
Gaza, if the Operation US Greenlight: Gaza, goes ahead as planned without defined goals, will esclalate terrorism manyfold in the region and spur on AQ. The rightists believe the operation as envisioned is designed to "soften up Hamas" so that Fatah's security forces can be inserted into control of Gaza. Their skepticism, while exaggerated, is reality based.
Obvious to nearly everyone, IDF escalation in killing Palestinians causes Hamas to start taking over rocket duty from Isalmic Jihad and promises an esclation in the range of likely targets if the IDF invades. The port of Ashkelon?
The great irony is that Israel is being encouraged by US FP to destroy enemies such as Hamas and Hezbollah that are the most effective defense against a viral AQ . On her own, Israel is turning the Druze and Bedouin into enemies.
Those Israelis who understand the odds are trying to convince their American friends that they also need a change in direction.
January 19, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't you figured this out yet? The Druze and the Bedouin were important allies to the zionist cause 40 years ago. Today they are no longer needed. Especially the Bedouins who have legitimate claims to the lands within Israel proper. Israel wants that land now for themselves. The Bedouins were fools to ally themselves with the Israelis, today they will just have to accept those parcels of land alloted to them
January 20, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I were AQ, I would seek out the disaffected among the Druze and the Bedouin, especially the latter, but the former do know the IDF from the inside.
Many thanks to outraged Israelis bringing these dangerous games to light.....
January 20, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
the return of Gaza was a huge signal that Israel is ready to deal. Olmert has publicly stated the Palestinians would be surprised how far he is willing to go. Just like Gaza, settlement dismantlement will be a nasty business, but I believe they will do it as part of an overall agreement.
Palestinians have more sympathy than any other suffering group on the planet (and there are a lot of them). They don't need to resort to violence, and in fact, it is at this point preventing the progression of peace. No other government would allow rocket attacks in their cities, so it's difficult for them to condemn IDF responses.
January 20, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg decreed the following to be war crimes:
(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; (my emphasis)
January 18, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recognize it may be a technical distinction, but the four-power IMT was convened by order of the winning powers, rather than treaty or any binding international law. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which was extensively ratified, including, AFAIK, by Israel, would seem more pertinent. While the 1977 Additional Protocols, not ratified by nearly as many countries, are more definitive on collective punishment, Article 33 is rather clear to me.
The IMT, and the little-known 13 Nuremberg Military Tribunals that followed, tended to make law as they went along. There certainly were examples where there lessons became part of less partisan declarations (e.g., the Declaration of Helsinki regarding medical experimentation) and actual international agreements, not situations where Katyn Forest and dehousing are politic to ignore.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 20, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, the Dresden bombing would certainly qualify as collective punishment.
January 21, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gaza: the 21st century Warsaw ghetto
January 18, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Collective punishment, as pointed out above, is a crime under international law.
It is precisely because Israel is never brought to any judgement under international law that they continue to break it. Laws of occupation, laws against taking land, laws against building settlements in occupied land, laws about providing security and law, United Nations resolutions, and on, and on.
Not that the US (in Iraq) could show any better a record.
But the world could enforce some basis of law. And hasn't.
I'm sorry. Fourty years on, the time has come to end Jewish exceptionalism.
January 18, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exceptionalism ?
Precisely like every other state Israel does what it wants to do and if that happens to conflict with "Geneva" its sophisticated leaders know exactly how Isreal is breaking the law and deny it's happening.But a substantial segment of Israeli society (I leave the estimate to any one of the many users here who are really know Israel)wants to believe they are really abiding by international law and so they do believe.
just like everyone else.
Countries aren't exactly the same in every respect. Primo Levi finally answered the repeated question of whether the Soviets weren't just as bad as the Nazis.
No.
Which was an unpopular answer by the time he gave it.
But while every country doesn't do exactly the same amount of things that shock the conscience no country is immune. Exceptionalism at bottom is statistical. It consists not in being perfect but in being somewhat less imperfect than
the mean.
January 22, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Fourth Geneva Convention states:
January 19, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
from the Wikipedia article on the Fourth Geneva Convention:
January 19, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't "freezing Gaza" the same as the United States' embargo/sanctions on Iraq which caused the innocent Iraq in the street to suffer?
Won't the results of "freezing Gaza" be the same?
Does collective punishment work or does it simply compound the horrors?
January 19, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is much worse, because the Israeli government controls the border checkpoints, the airspace, and access to resources. The US led sanctions against Iraq were 'long distance,' so for your analogy to really hold, it would have to be more like the US govt. 'freezing' New Orleans by placing it directly under siege.
Does collective punishment work or does it simply compound the horrors?
Collective punishment is right up there with waterboarding, in terms of ambiguity; as you can see, the Geneva Conventions are very clear that this is a war crime.
January 20, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
This morning, I saw something running across the CNN news ticker about the international condemnation of Israel for creating this crisis, but it was followed immediately by an Israeli reply about the shelling of Sderot. The average viewer, unaware of the disproportionality, was probably left with the conclusion that the blockade was reasonable.
I feel so utterly helpless. All the more so when I read the latest post from Mona El-Farra, at her blog, From Gaza with Love, El-Farra is a physician and human rights and women's rights activist:
MJ, you raised the issue in your article about whether an individual citizen is responsible for the actions of it's government. I would say no, unless that citizen fails to speak out against those actions of it's government which are illegal and immoral. In a democracy, that is our responsibility as citizens. A democracy in which it's citizens complacently allow these sorts of actions to occur in their names is no real democracy.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 20, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, would it not be possible for Egypt to supply Gaza from their end...that is, through their crossing into Gaza?
January 20, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peter - I would like to see a deal made between the Arab League, Egypt and Hamas on a unilateral cease fire with Israel and in return Egypt would open it's borders with Gaza. The Arab league would provide the humanitarian aid, fuel, and transportation of Gaza goods. Egypt would build an electrical plant to replace Israel's supply. Israel would have to reach a tacit agreement with Egypt on this arrangements. Israel would have to lift it's embargo of Gaza's sea and air routes provided the cease fire was maintained.
Hamas smuggling from Egypt has provided enough weapons and seems to be unconstrained regardless of what Israel does so providing access thru Egypt should not materially affect the balance of power.
Any Peace Agreement will have to be supported by Hamas so lets see if Hamas can govern. My guess is this arrangement will fairly quickly raise the standard of living in Gaza to a point exceeding the West Bank Fatah statelet. The Arab League I believe will support this move and a 50 year Hudna would be a boon to Israel and the Peace prospects.
January 21, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take your points.
Perhaps I don't understand the geography well enough, but why does Egypt opening its borders with Gaza and supplying Gaza with aid, fuel, and transportation depend on an agreement with Israel? Why would there have to be a lifting of the embargoes?
Understand I'm not arguing against any of this, and am obviously for it. But I don't understand why there's a requirement that an agreement be reached before any of this can take place.
You know the area well, I'm interested in your views.
January 21, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink