Another Perspective on Gaza…
- Posted by: Andrew Price
- on January 12, 2009 at 12:07 am
Israel’s assault on Gaza continues. Yesterday, the BBC reported that Navi Pillay, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, was not happy:
“The United Nations’ most senior human rights official said last night that the Israeli military may have committed war crimes in Gaza. The warning came as Israeli troops pressed on with the deadly offensive in defiance of a UN security council resolution calling for a ceasefire.”
My colleague Morgan wrote about the situation in Gaza last Thursday:
“The rest of the world is happy to criticize Israel for its aggressive actions, because it’s not them having their people shot at. Any other country would do the same, and with the same amount of concern for the civilians on the other side. This isn’t rogue teams of Palestinians shooting rockets, this is the government of Gaza. That makes this a war between two countries, and in wars, civilians get hurt. Israel isn’t being any more or less brutal than they should be.”
I think what Morgan means here is not that 898 Palestinian casualties and 3,695 injured is exactly the right amount of brutality, but rather that because war is inherently brutal, it’s absurd to distinguish between different degrees of brutality.
If that’s his position, I disagree. We have the Geneva Conventions and the notions of “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” precisely to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate brutality in war. The boundaries are fuzzy, and Israel isn’t torturing POWs, but when the U.N. high commissioner for human rights raises the concern that you might be committing war crimes and the Red Cross calls your conduct “unacceptable,” those are pretty good indicators you’re straying towards the wrong end of that spectrum.
But, moral issues aside, I’m worried that this violent campaign of “self-defense” simply won’t achieve Israel’s stated aims. The Hamas rocket attacks have continued unabated throughout the assault, and there’s little reason to think they’ll stop when it ends. This will likely only further radicalize the Palestinian population and lead to more casualties—for both sides—in the future.
DISCUSSION: 7 Comments
…not to mention that HUMAN RIGHT WATCH today verified that Israel has used white phosphorous, which is considered a war crime by international law. Israel overplayed its hand this time by holding itself to the same standards as Hamas, and unfortunately for the once noble state, the world is watching and we are not very happy.
I’m glad you pointed out the obvious and recognised that oppressed societies are usually predisposed towards radical positions. I’m sick of just hearing about how “Hamas launched rockets”. Whilst I agree they’re not particularly wonderful people, no one bothers to consider the conditions that arose in order for their actions to appear justified. Push people down and they’re more likely to fight back with any means they can. Put 1.4 million people, regardless of race, colour or creed, in a cage with no food, water, electricity or fuel, and see how long it takes them to start getting desperate. Common sense, methinks.
“unfortunately for the once noble state”
Noble state?
This is about more than just the current escalation, or if you prefer “reignition” of the conflict (though in my opinion, the conflict never went away). While I appreciate GOOD’s efforts to balance Morgan’s absurdly tunnel-visioned (no pun intended) view of the situation, this doesn’t go far enough. Yes, Israel’s response to the rocket attacks and movement of arms into Palestinian territories has been brutal and massively disproportionate. But it forms part of a wider pattern of brutality, oppression and a flagrant disregard for international law and UN resolutions, by Israel, against Palestine. As long as this continues, no strategy that Israel adopts will ever be effective in ending the “radicalisation” and terrorism perpetrated by Hamas and other militant groups.There can be no peace without justice. That’s not a threat, but a fact.
Hey 13strong, your points are well taken. My aim in this post was just to focus on Morgan’s argument about appropriate brutality on a more theoretical level. I suspect this won’t be the last word on the issue from the GOOD bloggers.
In regards to Morgan’s perspective on this situation, yes it is true that if any country was being fired at, they would retaliate. However it is not the case that most countries are holding a nation under 60 year occupation, after making so many of them refugees. One cannot expect to force another into a box with limited food, water, electricity supply and movement controls and have them not retaliate. This is no ordinary situation, and one can argue that these missles fired by Gaza is apart of their own “right to protect themselves,” or rather, revolutionize? I personally do believe in non-violence as a means of revolution, but if Israel really wants to look out for their national security, then why keep forcing the Palestinians into such a desperate state of anguish?
Israel has only needed to justify it’s position to the RICH of the world thus far. The RICH don’t empathize with the POOR, because they cannot even begin to understand the desperations of poverty. By provoking the POOR to do things that RICH people find discomforting, Israel has always won their support.