However, one of the best commentators in the business, Glenn Greenwald, offers up what I think to be a fundamental truth underlying many people's conceptions of the conflict and its participants:
Those who giddily support not just civilian deaths in Gaza but every actual and proposed attack on Arab/Muslim countries -- from the war in Iraq to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon to the proposed attacks on Iran and Syria and even continued escalation in Afghanistan -- are able to do so because they don't really see the Muslims they want to kill as being fully human.One of the most important facets to justifying war and making it palatable over the centuries has been to dehumanize the enemy. Greenwald rightly points out that this is exactly the same thing that Muslim extremists do to to help justify their killing of Western civilians:
If you see Palestinians as something less than civilized human beings: as "barbarians" -- just as if you see Americans as infidels warring with God or Jews as sub-human rats -- then it naturally follows that civilian deaths are irrelevant, perhaps even something to cheer. For people who think that way, arguments about "proportionality" won't even begin to resonate -- such concepts can't even be understood -- because the core premise, that excessive civilian deaths are horrible and should be avoided at all costs, isn't accepted. Why should a superior, civilized, peaceful society allow the welfare of violent, hateful barbarians to interfere with its objectives? How can the deaths or suffering of thousands of barbarians ever be weighed against the death of even a single civilized person?Read the Whole Article (via Andrew Sullivan)
Edit: Bear in mind images like this when you consider the human toll involved in the conflict:
Update: One of my friends emails with the following reaction:I take some issue with your Palestinian post. Not that I don't agree with the suggestion that Westerners have a tendency to look at Arabs/Muslims as less-than-human, and vice versa. It is implicit in your post, however, that the killing of innocent civilians -- and in such large numbers -- by the Israelis is entirely the fault of the Israelis. Your response, well, whose is it then? The answer, of course, is Hamas. Hamas has borrowed from the Hezbollah playbook: they place their arms and their soldiers in highly-populated areas and in mosques. They want large civilian casualties because that leads to political pressure placed on Israel, which leads to Israel pulling out. Which leads to more stalemate. Hamas is not interested in moving the peace process forward because any lasting peace will lead to a two-state solution, which is not acceptable to Hamas. Hamas has one goal: to destroy Israel.Although my dear friend's email warrants a much more thoughtful response, none is needed -- I agree with all of his points (or at least, in my ignorance, defer to his much greater knowledge on the subject), especially his "sincere hope is that the Palestinian people reject Hamas, and reject terrorism."
On a side note, Hamas insists that the firing of rockets into Israel is a necessary component of their struggle, their resistence. But, as with Arafat, the primary thing standing in the way of a 2-state solution is Hamas! Witness how far the West Bank has come in building up its infrastructure since the PA/Hamas schism. Palestinian communities in the West Bank are thriving: restaurants, businesses. Sure, they have a long way to go, and certainly financial stability doesn't equal personal freedom and dignity. But, look at what Hamas has done in Gaza in the last few years: build tunnels to smuggle larger, more accurate weapons.
My sincere hope is that the Palestinian people reject Hamas, and reject terrorism. That would apply pressure on Israel. Israel would then have no choice but to move forward on the 2-state solution. Ah, if only...
The main point of my posting on the topic had to do with highlighting what my friend described as "Westerner[s'] tendency to look at Arabs/Muslims as less-than-human, and vice versa."
When it comes to the much larger issue of proportionality and whether the current Israeli action in Gaza is justified, I don't have enough intellectual ammunition to even convince myself (much less anyone else) that I have anything approaching the right answer. For such weighty topics, I suggest a recent piece by Andrew Sullivan that, while unsatisfying in many places, does a good job of at least getting some things on the table. In general, however, I do have a couple opinions on the matter from which you can draw your own conclusions:
(1) Israel is largely an open and free democracy that strives, to the greatest extent it deems possible, to minimize civilian casualties in order to achieve its ends. This stands in stark contrast to the actions of Hamas -- a totalitarian/fundamentalist Islamic organization that strives to maximize civilian casualties in its campaign to wipe Israel off the face of the map. From this basic standpoint it's clear that Israel has a vastly greater claim to the mantle of legitimacy of its actions than does Hamas.
(2) Regardless of the fact that Israel is in a fundamentally more "legitimate" position than Hamas, we always need to assess the fundamental morality of the things that Israel does. This is the case whether Israel's actions are unprovoked or, as in the current case, brought upon the despicable actions of Hamas. I won't go so far as to assess the quantum of morality on both sides in the current battle. However, we need to bear in mind that there is always some line that should be drawn and questions in that vein to be asked. How much force is too much? What levels of civilian casualties would be unjustified? These are obviously not bright line numbers but I think it is important for us to think about them when situations like this arise.
