Nonviolence Finally Gets Some Action on American TV

The most important interview on any global affairs issue the Daily Show has ever had happened last night with the appearance of Mustafa Barghouti and Anna Beltzer, both advocates for a nonviolent solution in the Israel Palestine conflict. There are so many great sound bytes in the unedited version that appears on the Daily Show website. Here are my favorites:

• Barghouti says the Palestinians are victims of a system of segregation that is totally unjust. Someone from the audience shouts “Liar!” Neither Barghouti or Baltzer seem thrown off in the slightest, and Barghouti even expresses a wish to sit down with the man and explain his position to him.
• “This severe reaction sometimes reflects a nervousness on the side of people who are afraid of change, and the change is happening, the change is coming. Palestinians are entitled to the same freedom that the Jewish people should have.” Barghouti
• “The controversy around our appearance here shows that people don’t want to hear from nonviolent activists and [yet] people say ‘Where are the Palestinian nonviolent activists?’” Beltzer
• “Palestinians are not only Muslims, they’re also Christians. We have Palestinian Muslims and Christians.” Barghouti
• “I don’t tend to think that the Palestinian issue today is an Arab issue or a Muslim issue, its a human issue.” Barghouti
• “The Israelis will never be free until the Palestinians are also free.” Barghouti
• “There’s nothing defensive about denying Palestinians water. There’s nothing defensive about preventing people from having materials to build their homes. So much of the institutions that I understood to be defensive cannot be justified by security anymore.” Baltzer
• Another man, or possibly the same man as before, shouts while Baltzer is speaking. I think he’s announcing that he’s leaving because something Baltzer said was so offensive to him. Still, neither of the guests are really thrown off.
• “I don’t think the question is should Israel be singled out for criticism. I think the question is should Israel be held to the same standards that every other country has held.” Baltzer
• “You know a lot of people don’t realize how much, first of all, cooperation there is on the ground. That so many Israelis oppose…the settlements, the majority of Israelis oppose the settlements. And that busload after busload of Israeli activists are coming in to stand in solidarity with the Palestinians.” Baltzer
• “I personally believe that the best peace that will last, like in the experience of other countries, is the one between two democracies where a solution is not imposed from one side on the other but it is accepted by both people and I think that is achievable.” Barghouti
• “Remember that Jews lived better in the Arab world than virtually anywhere in the Western world … and the important thing is this shows us a precedent. That these things are not unachievable, that these are not peoples who are somehow fundamentally incompatible.” Baltzer

However, I’m not 100% behind everything that was said. For instance, I have trouble believing that 90% of the Palestinian struggle is nonviolent. Simply because I have no idea what is being included in “the Palestinian struggle”. Is he talking about the struggle of the Palestinian National Authority? Or is he including the PNA, the various resistance groups that have been formed over the years, and the everyday struggles of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories? We could come up with a variety of different statistics based on what we consider part of the struggle. And then of course we can slip into the debate over whether or not stone throwing or property damage can be considered part of nonviolence.

But Barghouti is a politician, and so it only follows he speaks in the language of politicians. However, none of that invalidates what he’s trying to do.

Both of these people are incredibly brave and incredibly necessary to the global struggle to ensure human rights for all. w00t!

Children of Monsters

For those of you who keep track of my discussions on the Arab-Israeli conflict both in and out of the blogosphere, you’ll note that I tend to bring up famous Israeli author Amos Oz. A lot. A whole lot. And I’m about to do it again.

Prime Minister of Israel Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to the UN this week was almost like a revival of David Irving’s Holocaust on Trial. Bibi came with an impressive array of valuable historical documents proving that the Holocaust did take place and waving them in front of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s face and recounted his own family’s tragedy during the Holocaust at the hand of the Nazis.

Then came the moment we had all been waiting for, the inevitable Nazi comparison. With all the Hitler allusions our nation has endured with conservatives and their theater of the absurd, you’ll forgive me for having some Hitler fatigue. But when Israel brings up the Fuhrer in the context of the Arab (+ the one non-Arab neighbor) Israeli conflict, the comparison becomes truly profound in a very unexpected way. Its not because Arabs truly resemble the Nazis, its because the Jews as a traumatized society cannot see it any other way. As Oz so wonderfully puts in page 343 of his memoir A Tale of Love And Darkness, the Palestinians and the Jews are the children of a tyrannical parent who do not see each other as fellow victims but as a reflection of their abuser.

“The Europe that abused, humiliated, and oppressed the Arabs by means of imperialism, colonialism, exploitation and repression is the same Europe that oppressed and persecuted the Jews… But when the Arabs look at us, they see not a bunch of half-hysterical survivors but a new offshoot of Europe, with its colonialism, technical superiority, and exploitation, that has cleverly returned to the Middle East—in Zionist guide this time—to exploit, evict, and oppress all over again. And when we look at them, we do not see fellow victims either; we see not brothers in adversity but pogroms-making Cossacks, bloodthirsty anti-Semites, Nazis in disguise, as though our European persecutors have reappeared here in the land of Israel, put keffiyehs on their heads, and grown mustaches, but they are still our old murderers, interested only in slitting Jew’s throats for fun.”

And there you have it my friends, Netanyahu demonstrating Oz’s point exactly and further solidifying my admiration for this author. Additionally, for all you Holocaust history buffs, you may enjoy Gideon Levy’s article on how Netanyahu’s speech actually cheapens the Jewish experience under the Nazis. Click here for a full text of the speech.

Now, who wants to get busy and publish an article on the merits of mutual recognition of loss to peace processes (written by yours truly)? I wanna be internet famous.

Demilitarize This!

Obama’s speech in Cairo threw down the gauntlet for Israeli leaders to respond.  The New York Times observed that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech was as much done for the Israeli evening news as it was for the Obama administration.  I found it boring, infuriating, and tend to agree with Aliyana Traison of Haaretz that it was full of “vague validations” and “vows to break”. Netanyahu’s principles and conditions were presented in categorical, take-it-or-leave-it terms. He ignored the various Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over the past two decades, under three American presidents, which were designed to attempt to resolve precisely the vexed issues of recognition, demilitarisation, borders, Jerusalem and refugees. (The Economist)

Many look to Netanyahu’s use of the term “Palestinian state” as a sign of hope for an end to the occupation and the ground work for going through with a two-state solution. But I don’t see how any of that could be true. Yes, he used the word “state” but I couldn’t find anything to demonstrate his willingness to see a Palestinian state that corresponded with any of the major negotations that have taken place over the decades.

“‘Benjamin Netanyahu spoke about negotiations, but left us with nothing to negotiate as he systematically took nearly every permanent status issue off the table,’ Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator, said in a statement. ‘Nor did he accept a Palestinian state. Instead, he announced a series of conditions and qualifications that render a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian state impossible.’ (Kershner)

For starters, Israeli settlements will not be frozen as Obama had declared should be done in Cairo.* Though Netanyahu pledged not to build new settlements or to appropriate more land; he did insist that “normal life” must continue in the existing settlements. Which of course is code for continued building there. (Economist) Famed Israeli author, and one of my personal favorites, Amos Oz describes the Israeli settlements as a fight over what exactly the Jewish civilization is.

” [If the settlers] succeed in their cause, they may drag both me and my children with them, to kill and to die in a perpetual and unnecessary war, or perhaps turn Israel into a monster like Belfast, Rhodesia, or South Africa. For this argument is not an intellectual exercise: it is a matter of life and death, pure and simple.” (In the Land of Israel)

Another key issue is the Palestinian refugee situation and the right of return. Netanyahu explicitly stated that the refugee problem must be resolved outside Israel’s borders and any demand to resettle refugees within Israel undermined Israel as a state for the Jewish people. (BBC) Certainly I don’t think it would be at all possible to guarantee every refugee a right to return, but there must be concessions on both sides to recognize the injustice committed against Palestinian refugees and a recognition of Israel as a Jewish state so that we may look to compensation and reconciliation for the refugees. Indeed the recognition of Israel’s Jewish character is important. Israelis already are in heated debates over what this Jewish character means, but there can be no denying that Israel has a right to exist and that it is Jewish.

Hands down, my favorite analysis of the speech coupled with some reccomendations for what to do next comes from the author I mentioned earlier, Aliyana Traison. Traison writes that in return for the Palestinian Authority recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, Israel must create a concrete plan of withdrawal from parts of the West Bank. She also added that if Palestine is to be demilitarized, “then Israel would have to compromise for denying a sovereign democracy the right of defense. Israel and Palestine must therefore sign a pact of non-aggression as a concession for a demilitarized state.”

Perhaps this speech has taken the entire negotiation process many steps back, or maybe it was Netanyahu’s election that did that. In any case, it is not hard to lose hope for a sustainable peace anytime soon. I grumbled as I felt myself growing more cynical after reading Eric Alterman’s piece on the Daily Beast.

“As difficult as it may appear to be to make peace with a corrupt and potentially powerless Palestinian Authority and a hostile Hamas, Israel’s other choices are actually worse; either to expel millions of Palestinians from their lands to preserve the state’s Jewish character or give up on democratic rule entirely, embracing a nightmare future much like that in South Africa under apartheid. Barack Obama offered Bibi Netanyahu an escape hatch, perhaps the last one Israel is likely to see while the conflict remains potentially solvable. Absent the pomp and circumstance, Netanyahu’s response could hardly have been clearer: ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’”

But in the midst of all this pessimism, I look at the work of Just Vision and all the various people they have encountered and I become the wide eyed idealist youth again. Israelis and Palestinians who have lost homes, lives, daughters, sons, been imprisoned, been beaten down yet still continue to struggle for peace by nonviolence and reconciliation. They’re just ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances that many of us might let corrupt our sense of humanity and compassion, and yet they are not. So I encourage you, my readers, whenever you comes across a piece of news that makes you think peace will never happen because nobody is willing to work for it visit Just Vision’s website and read any of the interviews they have done with these everyday heroes.**

Notes and Sources

*At this point I want to say that the American policy has been fairly consistent in opposing at least the expansion of the settlements. So this cannot be said to be an “Obama thing”

**That might have been uncomfortably cheesy, but hopefully you’ll check out Just Vision despite my word-fail

1. Aliyana Traison, “Demilitarized Palestine? Just sign this non-aggression pact first“, Haaretz
2. The Economist, “Israel and Palestine: A change of heart?“
3. Isabel Kershner, “Netanyahu Backs Palestinian State, With Caveats“, New York Times
4. Amos Oz, In the Land of Israel, p.127
5. BBC News, Israel sets terms for Palestinian state
6. Eric Alterman, “BiBi’s Bait-and-Switch“, The Daily Beast

Obama Talks the Right Talk

Cairo is an ancient city that has become a modern urban hub of the Arab world. It is the primary place to produce Arabic pop music, the favored study abroad location for Americans looking to study the Arab world, and the birth place of Pan Arabism and the Muslim Brotherhood. Ponder all those contradictions for a moment, and you’ll understand just how un-monolithic Egyptian and Arab society really is. This week, Cairo was also the chosen site for President Obama to deliver what he promised would be a historic speech to the Muslim world. Historic it may very well have been, but it was not without controversy.

The Hype and The Reactions

Some, including author Reza Aslan, decried Obama’s choice of Egypt for the apparent message it would send about American complacency towards their brutal government then later expressed excitement over his talk of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In the aftermath, the Huffington Post’s Peter Daou also expressed disappointment with regards to Obama’s talk of human rights and women’s rights. Michael Hirsh of Newsweek praised Obama’s fine words, but fears that they will remain just words. International reaction has mixed, as many see hope for better policies and others have been jaded by American promises of change. My former professor and colleagues over at Team Akbar Ahmed were genuinely excited by Obama’s embrace of the concept of a Dialogue of Civilizations. Its something Dr. Ahmed and others have been supporting fervently for years. Dr. Ahmed asserts that the speech is evidence that America is finally engaging in dialogue. Frankie Martin, my friend and Ibn Khaldun Research Fellow, writes in the Huffington Post that of course, a dialogue about dialogue isn’t enough.

“Dialogue of Civilizations” is not meant to be a “kumbaya” philosophy for the President, but a real strategy to combat anti-Americanism and win allies. The President’s use of the phrase should be followed by action including reform of U.S. visa policy to bring more people from Muslim countries to the United States, programs to encourage American students to study abroad, and more vigorous public diplomacy to bring our diplomats out of their embassy fortresses and interact with Muslims where they live.

UPDATE: Here are two of the aforementioned authors discussing the speech with Chris Matthews on Hardball.

more about “Hardball:Arab world reacts to Obama s…“, posted with vodpod

Choice Moments

I absolutely loved the speech. I hate that I love it, because it makes me look like an eager to be pleased Obamania victim. I assure you, my love of the speech has nothing to do with the man who actually delivered it, but of course I greatly commend him for it. So here are a few of my favorite excerpts.

“Tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.”

“So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.”

“The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: ‘Out of many, one.’”

“Six million Jews were killed [in the Holocaust]- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve. On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

“The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’

The Talmud tells us: ‘The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.’

The Holy Bible tells us, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.’”

Additionally, I also loved the entire portion of the speech where he praised the scientific and cultural achievements of the Arab and Islamic world. That acknowledgement I think goes really far, especially since it seemed our last administration was much more impressed their oil wealth.

Time To Get To Work

I will remain a skeptic about the potential of any American president to make significant strides in proving good will through action and not just words. I think our presidents have shown they can do a lot more good when they’ve left office than when they’re in it. My hope is less that Obama will make good on his speech, but that all Americans will make good on his speech. I want the American people to feel empowered to create better relations, to demand better relations, to demand the right kind of action from our government and non-government organizations.

And to be a shameless plugger of my own contacts and colleagues in the field, I want the American people to check out Dr. Ahmed and his team and the media organization that provides proof that there are committed nonviolent peacebuilders in Israel-Palestine, Just Vision. You should absolutely become a fan of them on Facebook.

Zionism and Racism Make For Fun Times in Durban

I’ve gotten some great feedback from my question to y’all about the US boycott of the UN sponsored conference on racism. I’m still welcoming more opinions, but I’m going to go ahead and get started in crafting my own. First, I think we all need a little background information.

The Failed 2001 Conference

This conference was designed to be one about actions and not just words, or so said the High Commissioner for Human Rights. According to the rules, the build up to the conference begins with preparations committees that focus on setting the agenda, procedural rules, and regional meetings that focus on corresponding issues of concern. As it would turn out, even just these preperatory meetings became ripe with controversy. Just look at the official provisional agenda and imagine all the debate that would take place:

The elements of the provisional agenda are to be grouped under the following themes:

Theme 1: Sources, cause, forms and contemporary manifestations of racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance;

Theme 2: Victims of racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance;

Theme 3: Measures of prevention, education and protection aimed at the eradication of racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance at the national, regional and international levels;

Theme 4: Provision for effective remedies, recourses, redress, [compensatory] and other measures at the national, regional and international levels;

Theme 5: Strategies to achieve full and effective equality, including international cooperation and enhancement of the United Nations and other international mechanisms in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia.

The bracket in theme 4 indicates that a consensus could not be reached on the word “compensatory”.

The issue of compensation for crimes against humanity was so heated it threatened to derail the entire conference. This would include reparations for slavery and colonialism, among other great tragedies. The reason the word “compensatory” is in brackets above is because the US suggested it should be. The issue pitted the US and European states against the African states, who were supported by the Asian, Latin American, and Carribean groups. (Chakmai)

But even within the African states group, there was some hesitation to add language about reparations. The Senegalese president is quoted as saying, “We still suffer the effects of slavery and colonialism, and that cannot be evaluated in monetary terms. I find that not only absurd but insulting.” The South African government and others focused their attention on gaining Western aid for the Millenium Africa Recovery Programme. (Chakmai)

But the controversy was not limited to Africa.  Arab and Islamic countries began pushing to have a condemnation of Israel in the final draft, which included linking Zionism to racism, and that did not sit well with a number of Western countries as well as Israel. The US quickly withdrew the diplomatic team that had been sent, even though they had no public participation.

Israel was branded as a “racist apartheid state” while the text called for an end to the “systematic perpetration of racist crimes, including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing.” Immediately, such claims were met with counter-accusations of anti-Semitism.

Durban, The Sequel

The second go at a conference on racism comes this month, but things were already starting to look bleak as it appeared Western states were gearing up to boycott again. Language from the original Durban text was not being amended to everyone’s satisfaction.

“If we have a clean start, a fresh start, we are happy to go,” [Obama] said, explaining the U.S. position. “If you’re incorporating a previous conference that we weren’t involved with (and) that raised a whole set of objectionable provisions, then we couldn’t participate.” (“Western boycott threatens U.N. racism forum”)

“We expressed in the run-up to this conference our concerns that if you adopted all of the language from 2001, that’s not something we can sign up for,” Obama said. “Our participation would have involved putting our imprimatur on something we just didn’t believe in.” (“US boycotting, Iran starring, at UN racism meeting”)

Even more unsettling was the invitation to speak extended to Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is practically today’s Middle Eastern anti-Semitism poster boy.

Really? You Don’t Know Why?

Now comes the part where I start opinionizing. In researching the topic, I came across a quote from the UN human rights chief Nav Pillay that is either taken out of context or evidence that Pillay is totally clueless.

“I fail to see why, given that the Middle East is not mentioned in this document, that politics related to the Middle East continue to intrude into the process.”

Its a forum on racism designed to air grievances against real and perceived oppressors for the world to hear. It should come as no surprise that different groups are going to use that forum to further their own warped agendas, whether they be Arabs, Jews, blacks, or whites. Its going to happen. Any conference that is supposed to address the issue of racism has to be prepared for participants to say racist and outlandish things. Furthermore, those racist and outlandish things need to be said in order for them to be properly addressed. Any good dialogue has to have participants that are honest with themselves and each other yet committed to coming out of the dialogue a changed person. Maybe the US pulling out isn’t such a great idea, but I think the failure of the second conference lies is a burden that the UN Commission on Human Rights needs to bear.

The important thing isn’t to focus on the content of these controversial statements about Israel but why they are made in the first place. Zionism, given all its diverse expressions, is not a racist ideology. Racism does exist within the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I think it is a symptom of a much larger problem. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not a conflict rooted in racism, its rooted in politics and nationalisms. There are obvious benefits for those who accuse their (real or perceived) oppressors of racism. When the world recognizes that a particular group is a victim of racism, there is a sense of legitimacy and perhaps even a sense of restoring dignity to their struggle.

I think its very interesting that the Arab and Islamic states chose to single out Israel in this way, because it proves an argument made by my favorite Israeli author:

“In reality, two children of the same abusive father will not necessarily make common cause… Often each sees in the other not a partner in misfortune but in fact the image of their common oppressor… The Europe that abused, humiliated, and oppressed the Arabs by means of imperialism, colonialism, exploitation and repression is the same Europe that oppressed and persecuted the Jews… But when the Arabs look at us, they see not a bunch of half-hysterical survivors but a new offshoot of Europe, with its colonialism, technical superiority, and exploitation, that has cleverly returned to the Middle East—in Zionist guide this time—to exploit, evict, and oppress all over again. And when we look at them, we do not see fellow victims either; we see not brothers in adversity but pogroms-making Cossacks, bloodthirsty anti-Semites, Nazis in disguise, as though our European persecutors have reappeared here in the land of Israel, put keffiyehs on their heads, and grown mustaches, but they are still our old murderers, interested only in slitting Jew’s throats for fun.” (“The Spirit Level”)

To date, no one has excelled at racism more than the Europeans. And just as Oz describes, both sides of the conflict are arguing over who has inherited that legacy the most.

Works Cited

Suhas Chakmai (2003). “The Issue of Compensation for Colonialism and Slavery at the World Conference Against Racism”. in George Ulrich and Louise Krabbe Boserup. Human Rights in Development Yearbook 2001: Reparations: Redressing Past Wrongs. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 58–71.

Bradley S. Klapper, US boycotting, Iran starring, at UN racism meeting, Associated Press

Laura MacInnis, Western boycott threatens U.N. racism forum, Reuters

Remnick, David. “Profiles: The Spirit Level”. The New Yorker (November 8, 2004)

Fight Racism, Boycott the UN?

When people decide to take regional conflicts and play them on the world stage, things can get pretty messy.

Case in point, the US’ recent decision to boycott a UN sponsored conference on racism because of its controversial statements that could be applied to Israel.

” Washington has confirmed it will boycott a UN forum on racism in Geneva next week because of differences over Israel and the right to free speech.

The state department said the proposed text of the conference’s guiding document remained unacceptable despite having been amended significantly.

The US and Israel quit a similar forum in Durban in 2001 when its draft document likened Zionism to racism.

Current language about “incitement to religious hatred” also alarms the US.

…

The state department said it was “with regret” that the US had decided to boycott the conference.

“The text still contains language that reaffirms in toto the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action [DDPA] from 2001, which the United States has long said it is unable to support,” it said in a statement.

“Its inclusion in the review conference document has the same effect as inserting that original text into the current document and re-adopting it.

“The DDPA singles out one particular conflict and prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.

“The United States also has serious concerns with relatively new additions to the text regarding ‘incitement’, that run counter to the US commitment to unfettered free speech.”

Unfortunately, I don’t have the time right now to really delve deep into the subject. But I thought it would be good to put the article out there and see what people think before I write an opinion on it.

Check out the article and sound off on whether you think the US is allowing Israel to derail the conference for their own selfish reasons or if the international community is unfairly and unjustly taking a stab at Israel and allowing anti-semitism to flourish? Who will really suffer the most from having the US boycott the conference?

Change Results By Changing Tactics: A Moral Dilemma

This same reader keeps pushing me towards creating more meaningful and well rounded answers to many of his questions and you know…I’m kind of starting to resent him. =-P

The Problem

What if attacks are launched from mosques, universities, and other civilan locations? What if munitions are stored there? What if your enemy purposely sets up in these location to use them as a shield so you have to hit the shield if you want to hit the enemy?

The questions that he raises are deeply philosophical. I may very well change my position on them later, but right now I believe that creativity is what may save us from all of the enemy’s weapons.

The Scenario

So let me create an example (please bear with any inaccuracies and appreciate the scenario for the dilemma I’m trying to pose):

You’re on a mission to kill a group of terrorists who are on the ground. You’re in a bomber plane and you see them go into a school where children from their own side are hiding from the battle. Do you bomb that school knowing that the children in it will die along with the terrorists?

Weighing the Consequences

Well, they’re not children from your side so its not so bad if they die. At least they’re dying for a good cause, right? But they didn’t sign up to die for a cause, you did. In war, when you bring death upon individuals who are not a part of that enemy’s army it is murder. You may never get tried or convicted for it, but its still a murder. And when you become a murderer, the terrorists win. They might die when you drop that bomb on them, but they’ll still have won. Because you played in to their trap, killing civilians for them, creating terror for them, lay the groundwork to find new recruits for them.

The enemy wants you to kill innocent civilians, especially if they’re a terrorist organization. It gives them legitimacy. So bombing that school not only becomes morally wrong, but strategically stupid.

A Possible Answer

So what do you do? That answer may vary in different contexts. But I think it is fair to say that if you are using a weapon that cannot distinguish enemy from civilian in that context, you’re using the wrong weapon. This is where I may be wrong in my assumptions of military tactics, but I think the minute the terrorists start running into schools because you’ve bombed all their bases is the minute you start using ground troops. It is my understanding that ground troops may have the capacity to kill the enemy without killing a civilian. Your mission then shifts from killing the enemy to liberating their hostages (whether or not they understand that they are hostages) and then kill the enemy. That I think is all that the military can do. As should always be the case, the government of the “good guys” must insist that they are not targeting the civilian population and are doing all they can to avoid bringing the battle to them.

Invitation to Challenges

So in conclusion change tactics, change the results. But I am more than willing to hear opinions that challenge this.

Rounding Up Israeli Opinions on Israeli Actions

A very dedicated reader of my blog responded to a post, appropriately urging me to answer my own original question:

I just noticed the original question was, “What should Israel do?”  Yet, all that’s written here is what Israel shouldn’t do.  I think the origingal question still stands.  What, if anything, should Israel do in response to rockets being fired into its territory by people trying to kill Israelis and whose stated goal is ulitimately the destruction of Israel?

So in an effort to answer and not answer that question, I’m going to do a little run through of the different theories I’ve found.

Restraint to Avoid A Conflict Trap

Celebrated Israeli writer, David Grossman, wrote an article for Haaretz describing a scenario in which Israel strikes hard at Hamas, then holds back for a period of 48 hours. During that 48 hours, the Palestinians and Hamas may agree to a new ceasefire deal or continue with the hostilities. Israel should also invite Arab neighbors and others to enter into mediation and negotiation. If rockets keep firing into Israel at the end of those 48 hours, then Israel should strike again and repeat the process.

“The line of self-control and the awareness of the obligation to protect the lives of the innocent in Gaza must be toed even now, precisely because Israel’s strength is almost limitless. Israel must constantly check to see when its force has crossed the line of legitimate and effective response, whose goal is deterrence and a restoration of the cease-fire, and from what point it is once again trapped in the usual spiral of violence.”

Grossman puts an emphasis on restraint and self-control, believing this will help international support for Israel grow. Futhermore, this kind of response would help bring an end to a seemingly endless cycle of fighting. He also anticipates the criticism of allowing Hamas 48 more hours to regroup and strike Israel again:

“It is true that Hamas will thus receive a respite with which to reorganize, but it has had long years to do so, and two more days will not really make a difference. And such a calculated lull might change the way Hamas responds to the situation. The response could even give it an honorable way out of the trap it has set for itself.”

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner made a similar suggestion to Ehud Barak, but on the pretext of sending in humanitarian aid.

Sensitivity to Violence

Gideon Levy in his article for the Haaretz looks at what he perceives to be a sincere lack of humanity on the part of the Israeli public. He despairs that any and all actions Israel takes are justified in their civilian costs. He also takes a look at the claims of Israeli suffering as though they were somehow superior to the suffering of Gazans. It appears that Levy is suggesting all Israelis are guilty of blind loyalty to their military, and have neglected to look after their own moral authority.

I don’t completely agree with that, but I thought I’d include it anyway.

Bonus Poeticsm

In this blog post, Marc Gopin, the Director of the Center on Religion, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution (CRDC) at George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR), talks about the mixed messages he sees in Israel’s actions and his inability to explain that dichotomy to a Gazan.

“I will not begin to discuss with the father that Israel is sending in tons of food at the same time, and tons of medical supplies. He would not understand. I could explain that the nightmare scenario for Israeli strategy is a collapse of all life in Gaza so that they then will be burdened with administering the place. And that is why they are sending supplies. But he would not understand. I try to hope in my heart that Olmert and others are also giving these supplies because they earnestly want to attack Hamas for years of rockets, not the population. But then I cannot understand the years of blockade which only harmed the population and made them side with Hamas.”

Gopin looks at this operation and sees an already existing logic that seems to have failed every time it is enacted. It is a logic that seeks to make the world what we want it to be through violent punishment.

“It is worse than criminality because it comes with a sincere delusion of moral righteousness. Someday, after negotiations are well underway and the bombs have been silenced, after there are reliable tables of bargaining set up for Iran, for Syria, for Palestine, after sane leaders in the United States once again join the universe of rational, interest-seeking states, their people will look back and ask themselves how they could have been so barbaric.”

Finally, Gopin makes an interpersonal analogy that makes me nod my head like a pretentious over eager adoring idealist college grad:

“We find repeatedly everywhere that abuse is a poverty of alternatives, that people hit their spouses and children because they feel they have no alternative, that there is no other way to quell their anger or get what they want and need, or when they have simply inherited this habit as the only way to live. And right after they hit and permanently do damage they wonder why they hit. Because they only got hatred in return, the last thing they wanted and needed from family.”

More Theories to Come…

This is FAAAR from a complete list, but this is what I’ve come up with. I’ve also only been looking for voices from the “peace camp”, since that is really what the original question pertains to.

I’m not a military tactician, so my understanding of the available options is limited. However, I am one of those hippie kids who shouts “Bullcrap!” when people say they have no other option but to bomb the hell out of something. I say bomb what you need to bomb to stop the rockets, but show some restraint. How? Don’t bomb mosques or universities, for a start. Beyond that, I don’t feel I know enough to make any reccomendations.

As always, feel free to contribute to the list.

Haaretz Writer: We’re All Just Kindergarteners

In an effort to do a better job of listening to the Israeli debate over the current offense on Gaza, I bring you an incredibly thought-provoking opinion piece from Aluf Benn of the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz.

On the false sense of security that has resulted:

“We so badly wanted to hope that the replacement of the failed defense leadership from the Second Lebanon War, Barak’s record as a watch tinkerer and crafty military planner, and the training and re-equipping of the Israel Defense Forces over the past year would result in something new and different. And then indeed it happened: Saturday’s air strike gave Israelis a sweet moment of nostalgia for the heroic tales of earlier generations. But it was an illusion.”

Fighting until the enemy either gives up or is all dead:

“It’s hard to stop after carrying out a hard-hitting reprisal action. Israel believes that a little more pressure will prompt the enemy to surrender, but is hesitant to pay the price that would be exacted by a ground operation, and does not want to be dragged into a reoccupation of Gaza.”

The coming war of attrition:

“The Israel Air Force, which has already hit all its designated targets, is now trying to hit “launching areas” at the very moment Hamas takes out those rockets it stored up and hid during the period of calm and attempts to bring new parts of Israel into the line of fire. The result is ongoing attrition, in anticipation of either international intervention or a “tie-breaker” move that would result in the enemy’s collapse. As long as the public believes that Barak still has such a move up his sleeve, it will support the war’s continuation. The only question is which will hold out longer – Hamas or Israeli public support.”

Benn’s ‘melancholy thought’ #1:

“Each time the operation has a new name, the objectives change, as does the enemy’s identity, but the principle remains the same – one side sees an opportunity to change the status quo to its benefit, and initiates another round of violence. Sometimes it works, as it did for Egypt in 1973. Sometimes, you end up back where you started, as in Lebanon in 2006. And sometimes it turns out to be a bloody and painful own goal (as it’s called in soccer), as happened to Egypt in 1967, to Israel in 1982 and to the Palestinians in 2000.”

Legitimizing rather than eliminating Hamas:

” If the war ends in a draw, as expected, and Israel refrains from reoccupying Gaza, Hamas will gain diplomatic recognition. No matter what you call it – international mediation, a combination of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his people in Gaza or even “calm plus,” Hamas will obtain legitimacy. After three years of some success in isolating Hamas among the international community, Israel is currently searching for mediators who have the phone numbers of Khaled Meshal, the organization’s political leader in Damascus, and Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas co-founder. The Foreign Ministry, which took pride in the quick formulation of an “exit strategy” during the last war, did not properly prepare this time. While the air force was gathering intelligence about targets, the diplomats were not preparing drafts for a cease-fire or building an array of potential mediators for an emergency. This was evident in the chaotic response to the French cease-fire proposal.”

Benn’s final word I think is funny in light of the recent comments to a previous post about the international community not getting involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict. I don’t know if its really true, but I think its one of those things that if people accept its truth then it becomes the truth.

Here’s an idea that could contribute to world peace: Shorten the length of the U.S. presidential election campaign and the transition period between administrations. These twilight times in Washington invite all kinds of trouble on other continents. The war in Georgia, the terror attack in Mumbai, the Gaza war – all have occurred against the backdrop of a fading Bush administration and the anticipation of its departure. Like fights among kindergartners when the regular teacher is away and the substitute is having a hard time imposing discipline. Maybe the Americans could give up some of the convenience of an orderly change of governments and take a little more responsibility as the guardians of world order?

Gaza Offensive: What Would You Do?

I’ve talked about what I think Israel should, or at least shouldn’t, do with respect to Hamas rockets being fired across their borders from Gaza. But I haven’t really spoken about what I think the Palestinians should do.

The Power of Protesting

I was reading articles about the various protests that have taken place all over the world, and I think protesting may be the strongest weapon the Palestinians may use in this case. Nonviolent protests against Israel’s use of violence while simultaneously protesting Hamas’ insistence on bringing the violence to the Palestinian people. The latter will of course be much harder to pull off because of a perception that it will mean “siding with the enemy”. But really, who is “siding with the enemy” more than Hamas? Who else plays in to the behavior of right-wing militant Israelis?

Pens Mightier than Homemade Explosives

Unfortunately, such explanations can’t be summed up in chants or slogans to put on signs. But those Palestinians in the territories and elsewhere who are able to write and circulate their writings have a duty to put their condemnation of Israel’s actions and Hamas’ hardline positions onto paper. We, the international community, also have a duty to recognize and continue to disseminate such information. We have most definitely been lacking in that department.

Opinionize: What Would You Do In This Situation?

So now I open the forum to other suggestions of what nonviolent actions either side could make to bring an end to the attacks on Gaza and Hamas’ insistence that attacks on Israel must continue. And if anyone has examples of such suggestions already being carried out, please go ahead and post those too.

PS- I don’t want to come across as a Westerner/Gentile who thinks all of her ideas are better than that of those “petty natives” or those “pesky Jews”. I’m simply building off of actions that I am already aware of and exploiting my role as an uninvolved third party, hoping that my detachment may in some way help rather than harm. As such, I am open to being told that my ideas suck, as long as someone can rationally explain why they suck and offer alternatives.