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.





4 comments:
Library Grape,
I hope you take a moment to read and consider the following.
There are two big problems with your post.
First, you've made the mistake of affirming the consequent. There's a decent wikepedia article on this principle.
Here's the syllogism:
- If X sees Y as subhuman, it is easier for X to kill Y.
- X kills Y.
- therefore, X sees Y as subhuman.
Sure, you dress up the article with caveats (Hamas is bad), appeals to authority (Greenwald) and appeals to emotion (the picture of an alleged victim of Israeli actions), but what you call a fundamental truth about the I-P situation is a logical fallacy (note: it is a fallacy because of the structure of your argument and remains so regardless of the specifics of the I-P conflict).
The second problem with your post is that you are (probably unintentionally) perpetuating the very behavior that you (via Greenwald) purport to decry.
Let me try to apply it more specifically to the I-P situation. You suggest that the pro-Israeli side wants to kill Muslims because they see them as less than human. You offer no proof of this assertion. On the other hand, the overwhelming historical and documentary evidence suggests that this is false (there are many, many examples one could cite - try doing a Google search if you need backup). Or, if you believe the facts are otherwise, please offer primary evidence of this. And no, Glenn Greenwald's (nor Juan Cole's, Jon Stewarts's, or any other third-party essayist's) opinion on the matter doesn't constitute historical, documentary or primary proof.
Meanwhile, it is well documented that the pro-Hamas side sees all Jews (not just Israelis or Zionists) as subhuman. Indeed, there is overwhelming support for this fact (see, inter alia, their charter and their daily state-ments to the Arab press).
So you've correctly identified a leading factor contributing to violence among people (the tendency to see another group as subhuman) and misattributed the subject and object. In doing so, you've erroneously and unjustly demonized (I won't go so far as to say dehumanized) those on the pro-Israeli side of the conflict.
Thanks for your comment. Much appreciated, especially for its thoughtfulness and depth.
If you'll go back and read my article closely, you'll note that I don't make any claim to proof for my opinion that a lot of people on both sides of the conflict routinely dehumanize the people on the other side. I certainly didn't mean to convey this construct:
- If X sees Y as subhuman, it is easier for X to kill Y.
- X kills Y.
- therefore, X sees Y as subhuman.
The final item in your chain is not the basis for my opinion and I agree that the construct is inaccurate.
I base my opinion that a lot of people on both sides of the conflict routinely dehumanize the people on the other side on the simple fact that this is how societies have been able to justify war and killings throughout history. The Nazis dehumanized and demonized the Jews. America dehumanized and demonized the Japanese -- and on and on.
I never suggested the claim you attribute to me: "You suggest that the pro-Israeli side wants to kill Muslims because they see them as less than human." I agree that the reason Israel is killing Palestinians right now is to protect its territory and the lives of its citizens by fighting Hamas. They don't want to kill Muslims BECAUSE some people see them as less than human -- my original post is only making the point that seeing them as subhuman makes it much easier to do the killing.
Thanks again for reading. As I noted repeatedly above, I don't claim to be an expert or have the right answer. The only thing I was opining on, ultimately, is that there are a lot of people on both sides who dehumanize the people on the other side -- which I think is a pretty solid proposition, although one that would be difficult to quantify or measure.
Library Grape,
Thanks for the reply.
I've become somewhat sensitive about this point (of the widespread and public demonization of Israeli conduct) since the appearance this month of mobs in NYC and Florida chanting "Hamas, Hamas, give the Jews the Gas" and "Back to the Ovens". Just as you might think it is incumbent upon all of us to resist casual racism or homophobia among our friends and peers, I believe it is vital that when my friends discuss the I-P conflict, they do so on the basis of facts, not distortions. So I'm going to hit you with one more reply from my end and then let you get back to planning the Inauguration Day jubilee and the Cheney-Gonzales-Feith tribunals.
We can probably quibble about the distinction between “because of” and “makes it easier”; the point remains a non-sequitor because the vast majority of Israelis and the Israeli government simply do not see (or act as if they see) Muslims as less-than-human. To the extent there are extremist Israelis that believe Arabs are subhuman, those people are not dictating Israeli policy - indeed, the IDF's removal of settlers from Gaza in 2005 shows Israel is quite willing to openly confront the ideologically extreme elements in their society.
To get back to your initial post, of all of the things being written about the I-P conflict, you grabbed a quote that unfairly demonizes Israel, put it in bold and called it a fundamental truth. And since there’s ample evidence that Israel isn’t particularly interested in killing *Muslims*, the effect of what you’re doing is helping Hamas achieve a tactical victory.
Still don't think you're demonizing Israel somewhat? What about this one: "we always need to assess the fundamental morality of the things that Israel does"?
Why what Israel does? Why not what Russia does? Or Egypt? What about Sri Lanka (receipient of hundreds of millions of US$ annually)? Have you read about what the Sri Lankan military has been up to the past 3 weeks? Where does this special need to always question Israel come from? On what basis of morality or international law does Israel warrant special scrutiny? Huh?
Point is, whenever Israel attempts to defend itself with military force, allegedly well-intentioned Westerners transform the potential battleground defeat of groups like Hamas or the PLO into moral and political victories for them by insisting on one-sided cease-fires and imposing stan-dards of proportionality and restraint on Israel that is wildly at odds with current international law.
I, too, don’t claim to have the answer to the I-P conflict, but here's an argument you might con-sider:
Hamas cannot remain in power but for the support of the Palestinian people and, further, Hamas will cease to have any currency among the Palestinian people when their tactics stop working. Their most effective tactic (aside from generally fomenting chaos and violence) is disseminating false information about Israeli conduct and motives and the application of international law vis a vi Israeli conduct.
Once Palestinians see that the tactics of Hamas and the other rejectionist groups don’t work be-cause they’ve lost the good will of the international community, then perhaps the Palestinians will make the decision to reject terror and start building their own state. And Hamas’ tactics will cease to work once well-intentioned people in the West stop demonizing Israeli conduct with demonstrably misleading or inaccurate statements (such as “[they] don’t see Muslims as fully human” or "we always need to assess the fundamental morality of the things that Israel does").
Thanks.
Mason,
Thanks again for continuing the conversation and for the excellent reply.
I've interspersed my comments in order to try to keep them responsive:
I've become somewhat sensitive about this point (of the widespread and public demonization of Israeli conduct) since the appearance this month of mobs in NYC and Florida chanting "Hamas, Hamas, give the Jews the Gas" and "Back to the Ovens".
I understand your sensitivity. All too often, criticism of Israel's methods can be blown up into the kind of generalized antisemitic bullshit I've read about occurring at some of the protests.
So I'm going to hit you with one more reply from my end and then let you get back to planning the Inauguration Day jubilee and the Cheney-Gonzales-Feith tribunals.
At the risk of going off-topic, I'm curious to know whether you believe that Cheney-Gonzalez-Feith tribunals might be warranted. If we take as a given that the Bush Administration likely authorized the torture of prisoners in contravention of U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions, wouldn't tribunals be warranted?
We can probably quibble about the distinction between “because of” and “makes it easier”; the point remains a non-sequitor because the vast majority of Israelis and the Israeli government simply do not see (or act as if they see) Muslims as less-than-human.
I wouldn't characterize the discussion as a non sequitur. You may find the proposition to be inaccurate but it can easily be seen as being relevant to the issue at hand.
To the extent there are extremist Israelis that believe Arabs are subhuman, those people are not dictating Israeli policy - indeed, the IDF's removal of settlers from Gaza in 2005 shows Israel is quite willing to openly confront the ideologically extreme elements in their society.
I think you misconstrue my point somewhat -- or maybe I haven't made it clear enough. I think there is a distinction to be made between: (a) actively believing that a certain type of people are subhuman (e.g., Jews, Muslims, Tutsis, gays, etc.), which many extremist groups subscribe to (e.g., the extremist Israelis you mention, Hutus, al-Qaeda, Fred Phelps, etc.); and (b) the latent tendency that, I assert, resides in many people to instinctively dehumanize a group of people that their tribal/religious/ethnic group deems as 'the other'. As to the latter, as "proof", I'd simply point out that this tendency has been at the heart of nearly every bloody conflict I can recall (e.g., America's genocide of the Native Americans, the Holocaust, etc.). Maybe I'm just too much of a pacifist/weenie/softie, but I think that the only way that people can stare into the face of atrocities committed by one's own country (whether arguably justified or not) and not be profoundly repelled by what they see is to subconsciously view the killed members of the "other side" as being less deserving of life than "our side".
To get back to your initial post, of all of the things being written about the I-P conflict, you grabbed a quote that unfairly demonizes Israel, put it in bold and called it a fundamental truth.
The fundamental truth I'm referring to is the fundamental truth, as I see it, underlying all bloody conflicts, which is the inherent ability of otherwise reasonably people to dehumanize the people on the "other side". As to your suggestion that the quote I linked to "demonized Israel", I suggest you read the quote again. As you'll note, the initial quote is suggesting that "Those who giddily support not just civilian deaths in Gaza but every actual and proposed attack on Arab/Muslim countries ... don't really see the Muslims they want to kill as being fully human." The point of Greenwald's column was to criticize certain pundits in the neoconservative sphere who have been far too cavalier about the human suffering on the Palestinian side of the equation.
And since there’s ample evidence that Israel isn’t particularly interested in killing *Muslims*, the effect of what you’re doing is helping Hamas achieve a tactical victory
I know you and know you to be an intelligent guy with excellent analytical abilities on many issues. This bit is beneath you: "the effect of what you’re doing is helping Hamas achieve a tactical victory". Haven't we had enough eschewing of rational discourse over the last 8 years by exhaustively resorting to "Criticizing the actions of X is just giving aid and comfort to the enemy"? By definition, any criticism of Israel's actions, large or small, is conceivably "helping Hamas", right? So, no criticism? Let's discuss the merits of the arguments involved without the resort to naked rhetorical tactics like this.
Still don't think you're demonizing Israel somewhat?
I don't see how I'm demonizing Israel. My comment about people routinely dehumanizing the "other side" has nothing in particular to do with Israel. I think it's common in the human condition. People do it in American, Canada, Rwanda, Syria, Israel and North Korea...
What about this one: "we always need to assess the fundamental morality of the things that Israel does"?
Do you disagree with the proposition or should we simply refrain from "assess[ing] the fundamental morality of the things that Israel does"? You refer to this statements later as a "demonstrably misleading or inaccurate statements". How exactly is that proposition "demonstrably inaccurate" or "misleading". Are you saying that we politely refrain from assessing the morality of Israel's actions?
Why what Israel does? Why not what Russia does? Or Egypt? What about Sri Lanka (receipient of hundreds of millions of US$ annually)? Have you read about what the Sri Lankan military has been up to the past 3 weeks? Where does this special need to always question Israel come from? On what basis of morality or international law does Israel warrant special scrutiny? Huh?
A classic diversionary rhetorical tool: "Who are you to criticize X when Y and Z also do bad things?" There are lots of actions taken by various world governments that I find objectionable. Russia does lots of bad stuff, as does Egypt. When I come across matters that deserve criticism, I will likely write on them. How does the existence of bad stuff done by other countries obviate the need for a discussion of the topics at hand?
Point is, whenever Israel attempts to defend itself with military force, allegedly well-intentioned Westerners transform the potential battleground defeat of groups like Hamas or the PLO into moral and political victories for them by insisting on one-sided cease-fires and imposing stan-dards of proportionality and restraint on Israel that is wildly at odds with current international law.
As I already mentioned above, I believe strongly in Israel's right to defend itself. I also believe that Hamas stages a lot of the civilian deaths by locating munitions in or around civilian areas. Even with all that in mind, at what point do you think that Israel's actions merit criticism? Are we all supposed to simply sit back and give carte blanche? Does Israel's right to self-defense immunize it from a thoughtful discussion of its tactics?
Once Palestinians see that the tactics of Hamas and the other rejectionist groups don’t work be-cause they’ve lost the good will of the international community, then perhaps the Palestinians will make the decision to reject terror and start building their own state.
It is nice to think of Palestinians finally rejecting the corrupt criminals formally in charge of their fate in Gaza (i.e., Hamas). However, the track record isn't so good. One can hope...
Hamas’ tactics will cease to work once well-intentioned people in the West stop demonizing Israeli conduct
I'd be interested to know where you draw the line between justifiable criticism of Israeli tactics (assuming you think there is any) and "demonizing Israeli conduct".
Post a Comment
Please keep your comments topical and respectful. If you know the author, please refrain from using his real name.