The Israel/Gaza Situation

The situation in Gaza is, no doubt, a complex and nasty affair.  Given the complexity of the matter and the difficulty of obtaining reliable information, I think it’s reasonable to suppose that there will be a spectrum of opinions on the matter, and that’s perfectly OK.

I am wholeheartedly willing to accept that Israel should have the right to “defend themselves”, as every country ought to be able to do. On the other hand, nearly every war in the history of mankind, including some of the most offensive ones, has been carried out in the name of “self defense”. So, claiming “self-defense” is not always quite the same thing as actually acting in self-defense.

I have seen enough information to satisfy myself on this point: Israel is NOT only acting in self defense. In fact, it is following a specific ideology, and it has some very specific goals, far above and beyond what their self-defense would require. It’s carrying out a “punishment” as much anything else.  As a former official said, a common perspective among Israeli officials and their supporters is: “why should Gaza’s residents suffer? Well, they are to blame”.

I would also add that I think it unwise and questionable to automatically assume that Israel, merely because it is “Israel”, is automatically right in what it does. There are some people, often for religious or political reasons, who automatically assume that since Israel is “Israel” and Hamas is, well, Hamas, whatever Israel does to the Palestinians must be right. My Christian faith and my Bible do not require me to blindly support Israel. In fact, I find the interpretation of prophesy that leads one to that conclusion to be quite errant. And I find the political vision that sees Israel as a bastion of freedom and democracy to be increasingly unbelievable.

There are, among some Israeli officials and some “supporters of Israel”, some very frightening overtones which, quite frankly, are spooky to me. A recent article by Andrew Sullivan highlights some of these sentiments. I feel these spooky sentiments are the undercurrent of much of what Israel is doing. The basic idea that is being thrown around  amounts to something like this: “you are part of a people who elected a bad government, therefore your life doesn’t matter”.

For example, this was what one man said at a Israeli support rally in New York:

  • “When you are part of an election process that asks for a terrorist organization which proclaims in word and in deed that their primary objective is to destroy their neighboring country and not to build schools or commerce or jobs, you are complicit and you are not a civilian casualty.”

I can’t get that phrase out of my mind “you are not a civilian casualty”. It keeps ringing in my mind. So even if you didn’t vote for a bad government, you become a “non person” just because other people voted for it? That’s essentially what it seems to boil down to.

So then, one might assume that this is just the sentiment of some extremist in New York, not actual Israeli officials and movers and shakers within Israel, right?

Wrong. For instance, the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset is calling for ethnic cleansing.  I think Eric Margolis was essentially right when he said that “To many Israelis, Palestinians are simply wild animals who must be caged up”.

Here are some quotes cited in Andrew Sullivan’s article:

  • “In the past month, Rabbi Noam Perel, head of Bnei Akiva, the largest Jewish religious youth group in the world, called for the mass-murder of Palestinians and for their foreskins to be scalped and brought back as trophies”
  • A young women being touted as the future Prime Minister of Israel: “Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.”
  • The former head of the Israeli National Security Council: “The moment it begins, the right thing to do is to shut down the crossings, prevent the entry of any goods, including food, and definitely prevent the supply of gas and electricity … why should Gaza’s residents suffer? Well, they are to blame for this situation just like Germany’s residents were to blame for electing Hitler as their leader and paid a heavy price for that, and rightfully so.”

I think Andrew Sullivan helps to underscore part of the reason why I am unwilling to unquestionably support Israel.  I am not anti-Israel.  I am also not pro-Hamas. I am just unwilling to automatically rubber stamp what Israel does. That’s all.

Israel does not have ethical blank cheque to do whatever they want, just because there is a terrorist threat they are dealing with. In fact, the balance of evidence that I have looked at so far points to the fact that they are doing some very questionable and problematic things (to put it diplomatically).

As I’ve already indicated, there’s also a troubling mindset in the way Israel is carrying out its business. It’s well summed up in this quote from Sullivan’s article:

“The grotesque death toll from Gaza is a distillation of this mindset – revealing at best a chilling contempt for Arab life and at worst, with the shelling of schools and shelters, a policy of indiscriminate hatred and revenge. Yes, killing women and children in shelters is about as low as you can get in wartime.”

Listen to this Post

Spurgeon On A Lousy Excuse For Perpetual War

spurgeonSo often, when long-term military engagements overseas are discussed, one form or another of “Well, now that we’re there, we can’t just pick up and leave. There will be bloodshed!”  comes up.

Here are some pertinent thoughts from the great British preacher Charles H. Spurgeon:

“What have we to do in the Soudan? Being there, what is to be done? Might not a withdrawal from it involve a sea of bloodshed greater than that which seems imminent if we remain? Who knows what is best in so perplexing a case? The evil lay in our first interference, and the sooner we quit the place the better if honourable engagements permit. Peace is our duty.”

(quoted by Albert Meredith in The social and political views of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, 1834-1892)

Listen to this Post

21st Century Rules Against Arbitrary Invasion

Apparently not recognizing the irony, John Kerry told Vladimir Putin:

“You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.”kerryputin

It sounds like pretty good advice. Now, if only we could get a 21st century U.S. administration that would implement a non-interventionist foreign policy like that! Then Russia could have a good example to follow.

Listen to this Post

Essential Facts on Gitmo (and why it should be closed)

Listen to this Post

Ronald Reagan and the Taliban in Afghanistan

Reagan_sitting_with_people_from_the_Afghanistan-Pakistan_region_in_February_1983“The freedom fighters of Afghanistan are defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability” – Ronald Reagan in 1982

“American officials no longer refer to Afghanistan warlords and insurgents as ‘freedom fighters’; yet, to a very large degree, U.S. and NATO forces are fighting the offspring of the jihadists that Reagan so lavishly supported in the 1980s. Preferring to compartmentalize history into pre-9/11 and post-9/11 segments, Americans remain oblivious to the consequences that grew out of Ronald Reagan’s collaboration with the mujahideen.” – Andrew Bacevich in The Limits Of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, p48

Listen to this Post

Hemingway’s Worry in 1946

“[Ernest Hemingway] worried that if the United States did not ‘learn to understand the world and appreciate the rights, privileges and duties of all other countries and peoples,’ it could easily represent the same danger to ternest-hemingway-cuba-1946he world that Fascism did’ and become the most hated country in the world. In order to be just and to exercise it’s power in a responsible way, America needed to avoid self-righteousness and learn to understand and respect the nations of the world. Having lived outside of the United States for most of his adult life, Hemingway could easily see how American actions and attitudes could antagonize other countries in the postwar world.”

- The Politics of Ernest Hemingway by Stephen Cooper, p.122

Listen to this Post

“Help Kickstart World War III” (Parody)

Listen to this Post

Random Thoughts In Relation To The Syria Situation

Chemical Weapons

  • It’s curious that the Obama administration. is suddenly so insistent on the importance of the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. The U.S. has had a very casual attitude in regard to this treaty. It’s allies have been able to get away without signing/ratifying it. Israel has signed but not ratified it. Egypt hasn’t even signed it.
  • The United States has chemical weapons stored in the Bluegrass Army Depot in Kentucky and the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado. As of 2010, they had over 5,000 metric tons of chemical weapons. From the information I’ve seen, it will be probably well past 2020 before they are completely eliminated.
  • John Kerry’s claim that “In the nearly 100 years since this global commitment against chemical weapons was made, only two tyrants have dared to cross the world’s brightest line. Bashar al-Assad has now become the third” is patently false.  There have been at least 5 before Assad.
  • U.S. ally Egypt, during the time of Nasser, used chemical weapons in the Yemen civil war. Mussolini’s Italy used chemical weapons in Ethiopia.
  • The U.S. very well could have used chemical weapons in World War II, if they had had the chance. They did have a “no first use policy”. The Germans destroyed an American ship loaded with chemical weapons in Italy. 600 people died from that incident.
  • Are the chemical weapons used in Syria really any worse, long term, than the depleted Uranium that the U.S. used in Iraq? I wonder about that.

Pinpricks

  • It is quite amazing to hear John Kerry speak about an “unbelievably small” attack, and then have Obama turn around and say that “the U.S. does not do pinpricks. Our military is the greatest the world has ever known”

Deterrence?

  • I find it curious that the White House sees it so important to emphasize how attacking Syria will send a message to Iran and other countries and prevent them from using weapons of mass distraction. It seems evident that if this sort of deterrence worked, Assad would have taken notes from the Saddam situation and there wouldn’t have been this issue in the first place! (Also, as a recent CFR article has argued, making this war about Iran is pretty much bunk from the “get go”, a horrible misreading of foreign policy)

Listen to this Post

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: