Torn by the Middle East Warfare
I am going to fess up. I am torn by the current warfare being conducted in the Middle East. Which side has the moral upper hand? Is Hezbollah and Hamas justified in striking out to liberate the occupied territories or is Israel justified in striking out to defend their citizens?
This is a complicated question. If you listen to either side, they will lead you towards their conclusions. But you then need to go and listen to the other side. Both sides have legitimate complaints and on both sides the arguments have merit.
If you allow either side to explore history, both sides will lead you towards examples of the inhumanity of the other side. Both sides are guilty.
I choose to judge this issue not on what has happened in the distant past but what has gone on in recent history. Those of us who desire peace have been working towards obtaining peace. What have been the most recent actions and just who must shoulder the blame for the recent breakdown and backslide?
I am going to point at the Palestinians. Israel withdrew from Gaza. The Palestinian People did not use this withdrawal as an opportunity to make Gaza flourish and provide an example of what would happen in the West Bank if Israel withdrew from there as well. Instead, Gaza was used as a launching pad for Qassam rockets into Israel.
When Israel responded to the Qassam attacks with artillery barrages, this was unacceptable to the freely elected Palestinian government. They decried all the innocents that were killed in the artillery barrages while not taking any steps of their own to prevent the Qassam barrages that prompted the artillery barrages. In fact, as artillery barrages were used to respond to Qassam attacks from "wide open spaces" those launching the Qassam attacks just moved the launching pads closer to Palestinian civilian population centers. The "brave Palestinian warriors" sought to hide behind the skirts of the "innocent" Palestinian civilians.
When the blast on the Gaza beach occurred Hamas withdrew from the cease fire. The cause of the blast is still undetermined. But even if the blast was due to an errant Israeli artillery shell, it was not cause for Hamas withdrawal from the cease fire. After all, Hamas expected Israel to honor the cease fire even when Qassam rockets were indiscriminately being rained down on Israeli civilians. Israel was expected to honor the cease fire even while Hamas did nothing to end the Qassam barrages.
Israel responded to the Qassam rocket barrages with proportional reactions. Islamic Jihad refused to honor the cease fire and was primarily responsible for the Qassam barrages, so Islamic Jihad leaders were the targets of missile attacks.
But then the explosion on the beach killed a Palestinian family and Hamas withdrew from the cease fire. Improved rockets with longer range were employed to reach further into Israel. It is important to recognize that these weapons have little military value. They are by no means a pinpoint accurate weapon. They are fired off in a general direction and the general direction that they are fired towards is target rich areas such as Israeli civilian population centers. The civilians are the targets of these weapons.
Many people hide behind "proportional response" due to the overwhelming Israeli military advantage. But let us explore this. A cut and chiseled giant of a man and 5 foot 7 inch 130 lb weakling (I am describing myself) walk into a bar. After a few beers, the weakling takes offense at something the giant stated and punches him in the nose. The giant responds by picking up the weakling and throwing him to the ground. The fight should be over.
But nope, the weakling is full of Budweiser courage. He jumps up and goes for the giants eyes seeking to claw them out. At this time, would not the giant be justified in pummeling the weakling? The weakling did not pick himself up and retreat while spouting a shower of insults, he actively went for the giants eyes. Must the giant allow his eyes to be clawed out in order to not be judged the big bully or is he allowed to defend himself?
This is where I sit. I notice that the Israeli population voted in a government that I would describe as being at least slightly moderate. In response (or perhaps for other reasons) the Palestinian People voted in an extremist government. I am willing to call an extremist an extremist no matter which side of the conflict they reside.
I want to see a just resolution of the conflict. But if the Palestinians walk into a bar and pick a fight, just how concerned should I be when they get carried out on a stretcher? They picked the fight with the giant after all.
This is a complicated question. If you listen to either side, they will lead you towards their conclusions. But you then need to go and listen to the other side. Both sides have legitimate complaints and on both sides the arguments have merit.
If you allow either side to explore history, both sides will lead you towards examples of the inhumanity of the other side. Both sides are guilty.
I choose to judge this issue not on what has happened in the distant past but what has gone on in recent history. Those of us who desire peace have been working towards obtaining peace. What have been the most recent actions and just who must shoulder the blame for the recent breakdown and backslide?
I am going to point at the Palestinians. Israel withdrew from Gaza. The Palestinian People did not use this withdrawal as an opportunity to make Gaza flourish and provide an example of what would happen in the West Bank if Israel withdrew from there as well. Instead, Gaza was used as a launching pad for Qassam rockets into Israel.
When Israel responded to the Qassam attacks with artillery barrages, this was unacceptable to the freely elected Palestinian government. They decried all the innocents that were killed in the artillery barrages while not taking any steps of their own to prevent the Qassam barrages that prompted the artillery barrages. In fact, as artillery barrages were used to respond to Qassam attacks from "wide open spaces" those launching the Qassam attacks just moved the launching pads closer to Palestinian civilian population centers. The "brave Palestinian warriors" sought to hide behind the skirts of the "innocent" Palestinian civilians.
When the blast on the Gaza beach occurred Hamas withdrew from the cease fire. The cause of the blast is still undetermined. But even if the blast was due to an errant Israeli artillery shell, it was not cause for Hamas withdrawal from the cease fire. After all, Hamas expected Israel to honor the cease fire even when Qassam rockets were indiscriminately being rained down on Israeli civilians. Israel was expected to honor the cease fire even while Hamas did nothing to end the Qassam barrages.
Israel responded to the Qassam rocket barrages with proportional reactions. Islamic Jihad refused to honor the cease fire and was primarily responsible for the Qassam barrages, so Islamic Jihad leaders were the targets of missile attacks.
But then the explosion on the beach killed a Palestinian family and Hamas withdrew from the cease fire. Improved rockets with longer range were employed to reach further into Israel. It is important to recognize that these weapons have little military value. They are by no means a pinpoint accurate weapon. They are fired off in a general direction and the general direction that they are fired towards is target rich areas such as Israeli civilian population centers. The civilians are the targets of these weapons.
Many people hide behind "proportional response" due to the overwhelming Israeli military advantage. But let us explore this. A cut and chiseled giant of a man and 5 foot 7 inch 130 lb weakling (I am describing myself) walk into a bar. After a few beers, the weakling takes offense at something the giant stated and punches him in the nose. The giant responds by picking up the weakling and throwing him to the ground. The fight should be over.
But nope, the weakling is full of Budweiser courage. He jumps up and goes for the giants eyes seeking to claw them out. At this time, would not the giant be justified in pummeling the weakling? The weakling did not pick himself up and retreat while spouting a shower of insults, he actively went for the giants eyes. Must the giant allow his eyes to be clawed out in order to not be judged the big bully or is he allowed to defend himself?
This is where I sit. I notice that the Israeli population voted in a government that I would describe as being at least slightly moderate. In response (or perhaps for other reasons) the Palestinian People voted in an extremist government. I am willing to call an extremist an extremist no matter which side of the conflict they reside.
I want to see a just resolution of the conflict. But if the Palestinians walk into a bar and pick a fight, just how concerned should I be when they get carried out on a stretcher? They picked the fight with the giant after all.
posted by Little David at 7/23/2006 12:13:00 PM
5 Comments:
I am going to point at the Palestinians. Israel withdrew from Gaza. The Palestinian People did not use this withdrawal as an opportunity to make Gaza flourish and provide an example of what would happen in the West Bank if Israel withdrew from there as well. Instead, Gaza was used as a launching pad for Qassam rockets into Israel.
Nice narrative but you have perhaps missed out a few key points that changes the perspective somewhat. Israel's withdraw from Gaza was not complete. Furthermore, it had continued with its illegal and highly provocative policy of building Israeli (though truth be told, Jewish) settlements on occupied land. Furthermore, since the elevation of the democratically elected government dominated by Hamas, Israel has held what can be described as economic terrorism on the Palestinian state, freezing the payment of the Palestinian portion of taxes and customs.
They decried all the innocents that were killed in the artillery barrages while not taking any steps of their own to prevent the Qassam barrages that prompted the artillery barrages. In fact, as artillery barrages were used to respond to Qassam attacks from "wide open spaces" those launching the Qassam attacks just moved the launching pads closer to Palestinian civilian population centers. The "brave Palestinian warriors" sought to hide behind the skirts of the "innocent" Palestinian civilians.
Again, it is the details that you miss out the change the perspective. The Palestinian security forces were not (and still are not) under the control of Hamas, rather Fatah. The Palestinian security forces are the "policemen" and internal intelligence officers in the Palestinian state. Hamas simply did not have the authority to control the Palestinian security forces. Any assertion that paramilitary militants can act in the role of police or internal intelligence is bunk.
The secondary factor, as previously mentioned, was that the entire government and government funded infrastructure of Palestine was paralysed with the monetary freeze. The Palestinian security forces, even if they were under the control of Hamas had not been paid for months. Frankly, the domestic priorities of the Palestinian government and their people was keeping basic water, power and sanitation running, rather than hunting down a handful of elusive militants shooting rockets at Israel.
But even if the blast was due to an errant Israeli artillery shell, it was not cause for Hamas withdrawal from the cease fire. After all, Hamas expected Israel to honor the cease fire even when Qassam rockets were indiscriminately being rained down on Israeli civilians. Israel was expected to honor the cease fire even while Hamas did nothing to end the Qassam barrages.
This is highly inconsistent. Let us face facts here. In the 18 month ceasefire, what exactly were the results? Hamas, did in fact keep the ceasefire, launching no rockets or suicide attacks against Israel. Israel arguably DID NOT keep the ceasefire, launching multiple incursions, resulting in the deaths of dozens of Palestinian civilians during that period.
Yes, Islamic Jihad kept launching rockets, but it is perhaps important to review the effectiveness of these attacks. They were highly ineffective. The range of these rockets barely reached the closest Israeli town. Furthermore, in the months prior to the collapse of the ceasefire, no Israeli had been killed by the rockets. Israeli artillery fire, however, was highly lethal, almost always killing civilians.
Israel responded to the Qassam rocket barrages with proportional reactions.
That depends on your point of view. Rocket attacks leading to no deaths for months vs. artillery attacks leading to numerous civilian deaths. The response is arguable analogous to responding to rock throwing teenagers with live rounds from automatic rifles (something that Israel also does).
But nope, the weakling is full of Budweiser courage. He jumps up and goes for the giants eyes seeking to claw them out. At this time, would not the giant be justified in pummeling the weakling? The weakling did not pick himself up and retreat while spouting a shower of insults, he actively went for the giants eyes. Must the giant allow his eyes to be clawed out in order to not be judged the big bully or is he allowed to defend himself?
That is a strawman argument Little David.
In your analogy, the buff dude is not justified in killing the weakling, going to his house, killing his family and then burn down his neighbour's house as well, "just in case" they share the weakling's belligerence.
At the end of the day, the Palestinians are the victims. Over a million Palestinians were displaced with the current borders of Israel. They are refugees in their own land. Israel is one of the few "Western" countries where your civil rights are determined by your ethnicity (Jewish vs. non-Jewish).
I agree with your opening statement. Both sides are equally at fault and in most cases, arguing "who started it" is pointless. The current conflicts are a direct result of a cycle of violence that goes back to beyond the living memory of most of the people currently living in the region.
Both sides must drop the absolutism of their positions and make some painful compromises. That being said, my position is that the initiative must be started by Israel. Why? Israel is the occupying force. Through the machinations of history, Israel is overwhelmingly the dominant force. It is cynical sophistry for Israel to state that their opponents must bend to their position first and that they are seeking peace. After all, the status quo is almost certainly going to be to Israel's advantage from a geopolitical point of view, rather than it accepting the formation of a viable Palestinian state.
Regards,
Michael Tam
Point 1: While Israel continued to build settlements, this did not occur in Gaza.
Point 2: Hamas might not have been part of the "official Palestinian Authority security forces" this did not prevent them from taking up arms and attacking these same forces in a mini civil war. If Hamas possessed the power to attack Fatah, this same power could have been turned loose against Islamic Jihad to prevent the rocket attacks. They did not do so because they did not want to.
Point 3: Your claim that no Israelis have been killed by Qassam rockets is ludicrous. I will give you two names, Dorit Benisian, aged 2 and Yuval Abebeh, 4. I will point out that these children were residents of Sderot, which was/is a frequent target of the continuing Qassam attacks. Israeli artillery barrages were first aimed at open areas as a warning of what was to come if the rocket barrages continued. Gradually the artillery barrages were moved closer to where the rockets were actually being launched from even if the launchings were from population centers.
I agree at least somewhat with your last two paragraphs. However I believe that your demands that iniatives must be started by Israel was met by the withdrawal from Gaza and the possibility of at least partial disengagement from the West Bank. Instead of the Palestinian side meeting these first steps by the Israeli side with similiar demonstrations of good intent, the reply was almost daily Qassam rocket barrages and the Palestinian people electing an extremist government sworn to driving the Jews into the sea.
Point 3
Read what I wrote. I didn't say that no one was killed EVER. I stated that no Israeli was killed in the months preceding the end of the truce.
List of attacks.
Look at the record of the Qassams. They are effective weapons of "terror" but they are hardly lethal. When compared to Israeli air strikes, they are barely more than toys.
Again, it is the balance that is important. Israeli attacks into Gaza have killed an order of magnitude more civilians in Gaza in the months that the ceasefire was in effect. The "cause and effect" of the "cycle of violence" is much less clear than you make out. Israel always claims that its attacks are response to Palestinian militant attacks and this is by large what is reported by Western media. However, the Palestinians aren't shooting rockets for the hell of it.
Dig.
Almost always, a renewed barrage of Qassam rockets is in response to Palestinian deaths following some sort of Israeli military incursion.
Now, this does not justify attacks on civilians though it is perhaps understandable. Similarly, I argue that although Israeli attacks on Palestinian militant positions may be "understandable", the excessive civilian deaths are definitely not justified.
Regards,
Michael Tam
I am aware of the claims of both sides. In the "cycle of violence" both sides claim their attacks are a justified response to attacks from the other side.
However, if we are ever going to see an end to this tit for tat cycle of violence, we are going to have to see some progress.
As imperfect as some might describe the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was, I am going to point to it as at least some progress. EVERY Israeli settlement was removed from Gaza. Instead of the Palestinians using Gaza as an example of the peace Israel could expect from the rest of the occupied territories if Israel was to withdraw from the West Bank as well, what has happened there is being used by the right wing within Israel to justify not withdrawing from Judea and Samaria.
As for the fact that no Israelis were killed by Qassams after the cease fire was declared, it is not due to lack of trying.
You are a slippery target. "Not for a lack of trying". Read the list again. The number of Qassam rocket attacks? Not that many.
Compare that to the number of Israeli attacks on Gaza.
If I were a Martian looking at the conflict in the Middle East, unaware of all the history, an analysis of recent events seems pretty clear. Israel is the occupier. Israel has been the aggressor. Israel has used much deadlier weapons against its opponents and killed many more civilians.
Look at the current Israeli-Lebanese / Hezbollah conflict. The majority of Israeli deaths are soldiers. The majority of Lebanese deaths are civilians. And yet apparently Israel is fighting a "justified" war and it is Hezbollah that is targeting civilians. Well, the numbers don't seem to agree.
Here's a quote from Ramon, the Israeli justice minister:
"Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hizbollah. Our great advantage vis-a-vis Hizbollah is our firepower, not in face-to-face combat."
After the horrendous attack at Qanar, is there really any question that the Israeli military gives a damn about Lebanese civilian deaths in the current conflict apart from the "bad image" on the international forum. Israel's justification for killing the 50+ civilians (mostly women and children)? "Hezbollah made us do it", or "Hezbollah coerces civilians to stay in the war zone".
Perhaps it is the fact that Israel targets vehicles on roads exiting the region that has led to so many people trapped in Southern Lebanon. Not commonly reported is the fact that several Red Cross ambulances have been targeted and bombed in Southern Lebanon while rushing to provide aid.
Freaking ambulances!!! Is Israel targeting civilians? You would have to be a die-hard apologist to still not believe that.
As per my article, I believe that Israel is committing war crimes and the evidence is mounting of increasingly worse atrocities on a daily basis.
Regards,
Michael Tam
Post a Comment
<< Home