Israel — VOICES for REASON

Dispelling misconceptions about the Arab/Israeli conflict is a focus of Efraim Karsh’s writings, and in his oped in today’s NYT, he brings to a wider audience key facts about the character of self-professed Arab champions of the Palestinian cause. He lays out a historical case that Arab states — who routinely jockey to be seen as advancing Palestinian goals — have in reality exploited that cause for their own power-seeking ends.

Agreeing with the thrust of Karsh’s article, I’d add this point: even if these backers had been genuine in their motivations and truly sought to serve the cause, that too would be deplorable. From my reading of the issue, the Palestinian movement has at its root an antipathy to Western political values, such individual freedom, and it has pioneered in the vile tactic of terrorism. Regimes that back that movement, for whatever reason, are complicit in its aggression.

(I explore the Palestinian movement and its goals in a course on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In chapter seven of Winning the Unwinnable War, I touch on a prevailing dynamic in Mideast politics that sheds light on what motivates contemporary backers of the Palestinians (e.g., Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia).)

Since Israel forcibly intercepted ships heading to Gaza with “humanitarian” aid, the choir of condemnation has shrieked in unison — from the UK, and most of the European continent, across the Atlantic to the bowels of the U.N. But putting aside questions on the laws governing international waters, was Israel morally right to prevent the ships from reaching Gaza? Yes–I’d argue it was fully within its rights to enforce the naval blockade on Gaza.

To judge Israel’s actions, it is crucial to recognize the broader context: the Gaza strip is under the control of Hamas, a totalitarian Islamist group, that is at war with Israel. Allowing arms, money, and other forms of aid to enter Hamas-controlled Gaza means allowing a sworn enemy to be sustained and strengthened to fight on. And a state facing that situation is entitled to thwart attempts to aid its enemy.

P.S. A word on the blockade itself. My view is that Israel is entitled to seal Gaza off from the world. Is that the most efficient means of thwarting, let alone minimizing, the threat from Hamas? I doubt it — in part because exceptions are often made for so-called humanitarian supplies. Should Israel act assertively to remove the Islamist group from power and dismantle its infrastructure in the Palestinian territories? That’s a point I’ve argued in other places.

The Goldstone Report on the 2008/09 Gaza war brings to light genuine horrors — not pertaining to Israel’s conduct in the war, but horrors indicative of the U.N.’s basic character.

What events led up to the Gaza war? Perhaps it had something to do with the 10,000+ rockets and mortars fired into Israeli towns from Gaza during an eight-year period. But that salient fact is given no weight in the report. The report actually seems to be calculated to absolve Hamas of guilt for its aggression, while smearing Israel for “war crimes” for defending itself. E.g. the report cites an admission by a Hamas official that the Islamist group “created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against the Zionist bombing machines” — but dismisses that admission in concluding that Hamas did not exploit human beings as shields. Facts in the report appear to have been bent into submission to advance a pro-Hamas agenda.

Read the rest of this entry »

In its endorsement of the Goldstone Report on the Gaza war, the U.N.’s Human Rights Council described Israel’s retaliation as a “deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population….” The idea that only a “proportionate” response would be appropriate has its roots in Just War Theory, the mainstream view of morality in war. So does the related injunction to avoid injuring civilians — even to the point of risking a mission to do so. It is a measure of the deep entrenchment of Just War Theory, that not only do the accusers accept it unquestioningly, but so does the accused.

Observe that Israel refused to participate in the Goldstone investigation and has vehemently criticized the report, yet its ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, told PBS’s NewsHour:

Read the rest of this entry »

If you’ll be in the Boston area in early July, consider attending the Ayn Rand Institute’s Objectivist summer conference. Voices for Reason writers Tom Bowden, Onkar Ghate and Elan Journo will all be speaking on topics of interest for pro-reason, pro-individual rights advocates. Read the rest of this entry »

In addition to Keith Lockitch’s Global Warming Panel at UCLA on Monday night (see his post earlier today), there’s another event coming up that Voices for Reason readers might be interested in.

On Wednesday April 15, Elan Journo will be speaking at American University (School of International Service building, room 203, 8:30 pm). The title of his talk is “What’s at Stake in the Arab-Israeli Conflict?” With President Obama presently making overtures to an Iranian regime that continues to pursue nuclear technology and openly calls for the destruction of Israel, this question is as relevant as it’s ever been before.

For a complete list of talks (all open to the public), visit ARI’s events page for more information.

The BBC and Sky News have come under fire for refusing to air a two-minute appeal for donations on behalf of Palestinians in Gaza. The group of British humanitarian organizations behind the appeal is furious. Along with a number of British politicians and public figures, like the archbishop of Canterbury, they have railed against the two television networks. What’s their beef against the broadcasters?

The broadcasters explained that they did not want to compromise their journalistic impartiality, since airing a solicitation for charity to Palestinians might be seen as endorsing one side in the recent war. Sky is a private satellite broadcaster, and so it should be free to decide what it airs; the BBC is in a more complicated situation, because it is publicly funded and required to serve the “public interest,” but its position is not unreasonable. (For the BBC, like other “public” institutions, there’s ultimately no objective way to determine what is in the “public interest” nor what content the network should air. Ayn Rand’s point re the “public interest” is particularly relevant here.)

But the British charity groups behind the appeal believe that there’s a more important issue at play, and that the broadcasters must put aside their own decision regarding what they’re willing to put on the air. The two networks are being urged to sacrifice that–in the name of what?

Mr. ADRIAN LOVETT (Director of Campaigns and Communications, Save the Children): Whatever the – what we acknowledge are deeply complicated issues around this crisis, at the heart of it are 400,000 people today without running water, 50,000 people who are homeless today, raw sewage running down the streets, and children who tell us on the ground in Gaza that they are afraid, that they’re traumatized….[Read the NPR transcript.]

Richard Burden, a Labour member of Parliament, has been leading the charge against the BBC and Sky:  ”This is not about taking sides in the conflict. It is about providing urgent help to people in desperate need.”

Need, on this moral outlook, is paramount–regardless of one’s own convictions and values, and regardless of the actions and moral character of the people deemed needy. Even though the Palestinian people overwhelmingly embraced the anti-Western, jihadist group Hamas for its leadership–that doesn’t matter. Even though so many of the people in Gaza are complicit in the attacks on Israel–that doesn’t matter. Even though some, if not all, the charitable funds sent to Gaza will end up with Hamas–no, all of that must be put aside, because there is a duty to serve others. Any evidence that the needy are in fact hostile and undeserving is papered over and evaded (hence the common fiction that Hamas and the Palestinian people are utterly distinct and separate groups, with Hamas somehow rising to power against the wishes of the people). 

Given this moral ideal of service to the needy, is there anything the Palestinians might say or do that would disqualify them from receiving Western largesse? Seemingly not.

Memo 

To: Secretary of State Clinton 

Just a quick note regarding the vacant position in your advisory team. I gather that you have been beleaguered by “a coterie of emissaries who have made the Arab-Israeli conflict their specialty” for decades. But apparently you’re “eager to recruit a fresh face to handle the Arab-Israeli issue, perhaps reaching beyond the circle of Middle East stalwarts.” With that in mind, I wanted to offer a friendly suggestion for what you should consider in selecting an advisor–and, later, framing U.S. policy. 

Obviously no one wants yes-men, but you also should reject candidates who trot out the shop-worn view of the conflict: the idea that it can be settled by placating Palestinian grievances and pressuring both sides to make concessions. No, the problem is not that this approach was tried, and that it failed. Quite the reverse. It was tried–in the so-called peace process and later in different form under G.W. Bush–and it worked . . . . to embolden Palestinian aggression, particularly by Islamic totalitarian groups like Hamas. 

The problem was not a lack of imagination or creative tinkering with the basic land-for-peace formula. The problem was a failure to understand the conflict and particularly the character and motivation of the Palestinian cause. George W. Bush went further than previous administrations in promising to fulfill the supposed Palestinian aspiration for statehood–and the results have been fiercer Palestinian aggression (see also the ongoing rocket fire from Gaza).

Madam Secretary, what you need is not merely fresh faces, but a top-to-bottom re-thinking of the conflict–and a radical break with past U.S. policy. 

–Elan Journo

Expressing the views of many people, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon implored Israel to “ensure the protection of civilians and that humanitarian assistance is able to reach those in need” in Gaza. The Bush administration for its part has similarly urged that Israel “be mindful of the potential consequences to civilians.”

This widely shared concern for civilian casualties has been weirdly one-sided. After all, the point of Israel’s incursion is to stop the barrages of rockets fired from Hamas-controlled Gaza onto Israeli population centers. In just the last two years more than 2,500 rockets whistled across from Gaza into nearby towns in southern Israel, yet few people expressed a correspondingly intense concern for the Israeli civilians imperiled by the Palestinian rockets.

I see two questions here. (1) why is there an outcry about Palestinian casualties, but nothing like the same response to the long-running attacks on Israeli civilians? The basic reason, I think, has to do with the common mis-perception of Palestinians. In their own propaganda and that of their surrogates, Palestinians are portrayed as the perennial victims. They are the supposed “little guy”–getting beaten up by a stronger bully. The facts, however, belie that notion (note for instance the money and weapons and ammunition, much of it from Iran, that has flowed into Gaza–enough for all those rocket attacks and, so far, two weeks of fighting in the face of Israeli forces). 

(2) The second issue: why do so many in the West condemn Israeli retaliation as “disproportionate” and implore Jerusalem to go out of its way to avoid civilian casualties (and here too, notice that the Palestinians are held to a different standard). The answer lies with an influential view of morality in war, called Just War Theory, that enjoins going out of one’s way to show compassion to civilians. This is also the source for the idea that a “disproportionate” use of force is wrong. But is the Just-War doctrine right? The situation in Gaza raises this broader moral question: if Israel (or another nation) launches a retaliatory military campaign, what’s the proper attitude to take regarding civilians residing in the hostile regime? 

In an article from a few years ago, critiquing Just War doctrine, Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein convincingly present a strikingly unconventional view on that issue: They argue, in part, that the prevailing injunction to avoid civilian casualties is improper and destructive of a free nation’s efforts to defend itself. There is a lot more to their viewpoint, which has broad application to today. Read the whole thing.

Post Script: Notice that the Israeli military long ago internalized these supposedly moral constraints. Take, for instance, this story about how the Israelis drop leaflets warning (hostile) Palestinians of upcoming bombing raids, so that they may flee. It is in no small part due to this “just war” prosecution of the wars that Israel has weakened itself. But that’s a topic for another post.