« Juan Cole on Stage With Melissa Etheridge, Rick Warren | JohnMcCSF's Blog | Cordesman: Gaza...Strategic Failure? »
Gaza and Israel: A Question for the Weak
Nir Rosen is out with a worthy OpEd at the Guardian UK in which he examines the on-going disaster in Gaza and Palestine in the context of colonialism and resistance to it.
I highly recommend the entire piece, but one part struck me because it recalled an observation by Israeli historian and military strategist Martin van Creveld because I think here we can see why the present Israeli violence as with its Lebanon adventure is doomed to bloody and pointless failure
First Rosen:
Why Iraq Will End as Vietnam Did
I highly recommend the entire piece, but one part struck me because it recalled an observation by Israeli historian and military strategist Martin van Creveld because I think here we can see why the present Israeli violence as with its Lebanon adventure is doomed to bloody and pointless failure
First Rosen:
An American journal once asked me to contribute an essay to a discussion on whether terrorism or attacks against civilians could ever be justified. My answer was that an American journal should not be asking whether attacks on civilians can ever be justified. This is a question for the weak, for the Native Americans in the past, for the Jews in Nazi Germany, for the Palestinians today, to ask themselves
Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what the Other does, not what we do. The powerful - whether Israel, America, Russia or China - will always describe their victims' struggle as terrorism.
Van Creveld observed in comparing Iraq and Vietnam (an observation equally applicable to the Lebanon invasion which I believe he supported):
In international life, an armed force that keeps beating down on a weaker opponent will be seen as committing a series of crimes; therefore it will end up by losing the support of its allies, its own people, and its own troops. Depending on the quality of the forces - whether they are draftees or professionals, the effectiveness of the propaganda machine, the nature of the political process, and so on - things may happen quickly or take a long time to mature. However, the outcome is always the same. He (or she) who does not understand this does not understand anything about war; or, indeed, human nature.In other words, he who fights against the weak - and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed - and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish. As Vietnam and countless other cases prove, no armed force however rich, however powerful, however, advanced, and however well motivated is immune to this dilemma. The end result is always disintegration and defeat...
It is a lesson that, after 60 years of unremitting violence and oppression of the Palestinians, the Israelis, to their ulitmate peril, have not learned
Now I fear it is too late for them to learn.
Why Iraq Will End as Vietnam Did
Advertisement
Zionism was a noble enterprise. Its implementation, however was violent and its consequences have been devastating.
The main regional problem is twofold and overlooked. First: The region consists of religious/ethnic states. Israel is a Jewish state and would lose its "Jewishnese" if it agreed to right of return for displaced Palestinians. This would not be devastating were it not for the fact that Israel is surrounded by other religious states with an historical animosity rooted in ancient tribal prejudices. However, the cost of Jewish identity is a policy that is nothing less than apartheid. Palestinians are reduced to an itinerant ghetto status similiar to what Jews have historically suffered.
The second problem is water. Jewish settlements are all placed on water wells. With water so precious in that region, is it any wonder that settlements are so difficult to remove?
So you have tribal animosity (Palestinian comes from Phillistine) coupled with limited water. Now add the importance of oil and Israel's important role as lightning rod with a first world conscript army, and the result is a prolonged war that has superceded diplomacy. There is no diplomacy outside of force-brokered cease fires.
The answer, oddly enough, is reducing US dependence on foreign oil and reducing/eliminating US armament sales in the region. The region remains a united hostile front. However, pre-existing tensions within the Arab, Persian, and Jewish communities would surface without the threat of a common enemy. Israel would fall apart under the weight of its own religious tensions, as would Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
The fact is that religious dictatorships are good for the oil business. The theocracies are held together by petrodollars. Diplomacy would fill the vacuum if the region was drained of oil interests. The process would be ugly and slow, but the temperature (in absence if financial friction) would inevitably cool.
The fact is that the power is being held along tribal lines because that is the most expedient means of social control. That is the method of colonialism. Remove the colonial interest, and stability slowly returns. As long as the US depends on foreign oil, a bloated military, and foreign debt leverage, the region will continue to boil over in blood.
January 1, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, in the interest of cynicism, I want to contradict Crefeld. The victory over the weak is a potent historical force. Look at our own "Indian Program" in light of manifest destiny. Look at the British and Roman empires. Powerful nations train their armies and cut their teeth on the weak. Trade lines are built on razed villages. Government is not a noble enterprise save to those who grow fat from that myth. It is popular today to believe in blessed freedom and rational government, but it is a lie. As big a lie as any ever devised.
January 1, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink