Israel's War on Terror
Israel has commonly argued that the Palestinians are terrorists because they do not recognize the distinction between military and civilian targets, and often lack a sense of proportionality in their actions. The occasional suicide bombing has tended to bolster the Israeli's case that they are fighting terrorists who lack any basic moral understanding. Yet recent events have exposed the ideological character of Israel's war on terror. On June 25, Palestinians captured Corporal Gilad Shalit (see our post Shalit Supremacy), and then, yesterday, Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a similar kidnapping raid. These acts are significant because they seem to suggest a change in tactics that recognizes an ethical distinction between targeting soldiers v. civilians, and that even seems to seek to avoid unnecessary killing in a political conflict.
It is striking, then, how phenomenally disproportionate Israel's reaction to the kidnapping of three of its soldiers has been. In response to the first kidnapping, Isreal, among other things, violated Syrian sovereignty, buzzed the President's summer home, sent thousands of soldiers into Gaza, bombed a power plant cutting off electricity to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, shutting down water wells and killing electricity to various hospitals. Since then, in its ostensible effort to free Shalit, Israel has "dropped a quarter-ton bomb on a home in Gaza City, killing a couple and seven of their children, ages 4-18." In response to the second kidnapping, Israel has, so far, sent soldiers into southern Lebanon, used warships to block Lebanese ports, conducted a series of air raids that, among other things, hit Lebanon's only international airport in Beirut, forcing its closure, and that killed 35 Lebanese civilians. Israel has also upped its raids in Gaza, killing at least 23 Palestinians. The point is not mere hypocrisy on the part of the Israelis, nor that they are more 'terroristic' because they kill more civilians and hit more civilian targets. Rather, it is that, as the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah become more tactical and 'proportionate', the Israeli response has become more disproportionate and violent. The hysterical character of the response derives from the fact that Israel's war on terror has more to do with policing the Palestinians and, somewhat graspingly, with finding some basis to establish domestic stability and coherence, than it does with defending its society from what it calls terrorists. For political reasons having little to do with suicide bombing, it is the Israelis who are more dependent upon the senseless logic of retaliation than the Palestinians.
It is striking, then, how phenomenally disproportionate Israel's reaction to the kidnapping of three of its soldiers has been. In response to the first kidnapping, Isreal, among other things, violated Syrian sovereignty, buzzed the President's summer home, sent thousands of soldiers into Gaza, bombed a power plant cutting off electricity to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, shutting down water wells and killing electricity to various hospitals. Since then, in its ostensible effort to free Shalit, Israel has "dropped a quarter-ton bomb on a home in Gaza City, killing a couple and seven of their children, ages 4-18." In response to the second kidnapping, Israel has, so far, sent soldiers into southern Lebanon, used warships to block Lebanese ports, conducted a series of air raids that, among other things, hit Lebanon's only international airport in Beirut, forcing its closure, and that killed 35 Lebanese civilians. Israel has also upped its raids in Gaza, killing at least 23 Palestinians. The point is not mere hypocrisy on the part of the Israelis, nor that they are more 'terroristic' because they kill more civilians and hit more civilian targets. Rather, it is that, as the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah become more tactical and 'proportionate', the Israeli response has become more disproportionate and violent. The hysterical character of the response derives from the fact that Israel's war on terror has more to do with policing the Palestinians and, somewhat graspingly, with finding some basis to establish domestic stability and coherence, than it does with defending its society from what it calls terrorists. For political reasons having little to do with suicide bombing, it is the Israelis who are more dependent upon the senseless logic of retaliation than the Palestinians.
5 Comments:
This article is uninformed at best, biased for sure. First and foremost, a Israeli teenager was kidnaped and killed by the Hamas at the same time as the soldier.
Second, Hamas has been shelling the Israeli town of Shderot and the city of Ashkelon for the past year. Targeting schools, kindergardens, and playgrounds.
The Hizbullah is doing the same from the Lebanon border with current tool standing at several dead and over 60 wounded in missile attacks on Israeli cities and villages.
Islamic Terrorists target civilans, case and point.
Koby has missed the point substantially. It isn't the numbers game or tactics; after all, nobody wins on that account, their are unjust victims on both sides. The crucial issue is the character of the Israeli response. For years, Hizbullah has sent the occasional rocket yet Israel has never responded in this way. Despite the other things that have happened over the past weeks, it is clear that the kidnapping is the focus. Israel's response has been hysterical - threatening the president of a sovereign nation, blockading another, bombing a main Palestinian power plant, destroying Beirut airport runways, as well as killing tens of Lebanese and Palestinians. For years, Isreal has insisted on making the conflict about tactics (terrorism), because this was a way of forestalling serious discussion of political issues, and preventing serious negotiations. The kidnappings intimate a shift away from the kinds of tactics Israel was able to brand terrorist, and therefore threatens Israel's war on terror. The hysteria of the response reflects Israel's desperate desire to avoid to reimpose their war on terror, and avoid recognizing the political claims of others.
PS, Koby, what world do you live in where bias does not operate...?
I'm not sure that Israel has ever framed their conflict with the Palestinians primarily as a war against terror. It seems to me it's framed as a war for national suvival.
The idea that terrorism is really about violence against combatants versus civilians is laughable. As a general statistical rule, Israel's record re killing civilians versus killing combatants is far worse than those of Hizb Allah and of the amalgamated Palestinian armed groups. Same is true in the current hostilities so far: Israeli fatalities are so far 1:1 (12 military, 12 civilian), Lebanese fatalities something like a dozen or so (including Hizb Allah fighters) to 200. This has nothing to do with Hamas or Hizbullah being angels, it has more to do with structural factors, military capabilities (or lack thereof), etc. But the fact that the 'terrorism' label is used even when military targets are attacked easily refutes the notion that the terrorism discourse in any way resembles say, a discourse like international humanitarian law (which is itself problematic, but for other reasnos).
The idea that we are dealing with one side that 'targets civilians' and another side that 'targets terrorists' is therefore a fiction. Neither side particularly cares about civilians, and both use violence to advance their political goals. Discouraging the serious study and evaluation of those political goals is exactly what the focus on 'terrorism' is about. This doesn't necessarily mean that one should jettison all ethical or legal limitations on the use of violence, but it DOES mean that such a discussion should not be used to displace or push away the politics at hand, including and especially the critique of Zionism.
Post a Comment
<< Home