Why don't Israelis do right thing, commit suicide?

"Plainly, then, the Israelis should do what no other country would ever be expected to do, and commit suicide."

Yes, because clearly they have only two choices. Extensive airstrikes in Gaza or "committing suicide".

Hopefully, tunnel-visioned people on either side (plus the sidelines) that only see issues and their solutions in black and white (the attitude displayed by this post) will not continue to prevail.

Blake: "Hopefully, tunnel-visioned people on either side (plus the sidelines) that only see issues and their solutions in black and white (the attitude displayed by this post) will not continue to prevail."

Well, at least this post offers a reasoned, if limited, analysis of the problems. Do you have anything else to offer other than warm fuzzies that deny reality?

The slippery spot in your argument Rod is where Israel gets "sick and tired of" Hamas. What does that mean and how does it justify killing 300 people including who knows how many civilians? How many Israelis had been killed by the rockets? And what's with this odd displacement of the issue onto European reactions? American liberals (the majority of Jews among them) tend to be very supportive of Israel and take each of Israel's diplomatic and military actions on its own merits. It's only the American right that not only unthinkingly defends every action by Israel but (as Andy McCarthy did yesterday in The Corner) DEMANDS THAT CIVILIANS BE SLAUGHTERED TOO.

From where I sit, both sides appear to be taking advantage of the end of the cease-fire to bombard each other. Making up for lost time, I guess.

Rod, I wouldn't underestimate the part that anger that has been passed along for generations plays in prolonging this, at least on the Palestinian side. It's completely irrational, and against the long-term interests of the Palestinians to continue this, yet they do, year after year.

I am strongly sympathetic to the Israeli point of view, mostly because nearly everyone I know never has a good word to say for Israel, and so I feel the need to defend them. And I hate everything Hamas stands for, and I don't believe that Hamas is representative of the Palestinian people in anything but their rage and bitterness.

But, I do agree with Sig and other posters above that demonizing either side brings us no closer to solving this longstanding problem. I pray the new Obama Administration will succeed in helping the parties arrive at a solution, though ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians themselves to do so.

Given Hamas' attacks on Israel, I understand why Israel is fighting back. However, there is a danger that comes with picking sides because it makes one country look like perfect angels and the other side blood-thirsty demons. This point of view dehumanizes both Israel and Palestine.

I hope that this situation comes to a peaceful resolution soon.

Irael could earn the respect of her detractors if she would only strap high exposives to Israeli children and send them in to detonate among goups of children in Gaza.

sigaliris: Where are their peaceful options? Where are the jobs, the investment, the education for them? They don't have schools, medical care or freedom of movement.

Whose fault is that? If the Palestinians were to focus on building up their own society rather than scapegoating the Israelis, we'd have a very different situation. Where are the Palestinians advocating for peace? Where are the Palestinians building up schools and hospitals?

If the Palestinians advocated peace, asking only to be left alone so they could build a civil society, the Israelis would be accomodating (and would restrain the extremists in their midst). But the Palestinians have never shown any interest in living side by side with Israel. They want that nation gone.

Sometimes the humane thing is to stand up to a bully. Israel has been more than tolerant of the situation. Good for them in reminding the Palestinians and the world that they won't just sit there and take the abuse.

do you have any care at all for your Orthodox and Catholic brothers and sisters among the Palestinians, and how their lives are affected by Israel's policies?

Of course these Christians receive nothing but respect and support from Hamas and the other radical Muslim organizations that control the Palestinian areas in the Middle East.

@Rod: Why have you painted such a black and white picture so that it appears that Israel has only 2 options: massive air strikes against a mixed militant-civilian population and "committing suicide?" Where's the middle ground, which may even involve a more tactical, precise military option -- surely the bloodthirsty would find it just as appealing?

[To make a point I recently made in a related thread at Volokh:]

I would note that under just war theory, a state can't commence use of military force without a serious prospect of success in reaching the legitimate objective (i.e., force can't be used if the use of force is futile). That is a standard separate from the standard that if force is permissible, it must be used with proportionality.

The question that Israel's military response raises in my mind is what the legitimate objective of that action is, and whether the action is reasonably likely to achieve that objective. Wanting to "hit back, hard," without more, is not a legitimate military objective.

(To state what should be obvious, assuming arguendo that Hamas is a state entitled to use military force where permitted by just war theory, which is a big "if," the same standard would apply, and to my mind obviously has not been met here.)

The United States = Batman. Hamas = The Joker. Depending on your politics, Israel is either Commissioner Gordon or Harvey Dent.

I cannot get over the equivocation. There is no comparison between Israel and Hamas. To recap:

1) A cease-fire expires.
2) Hamas starts attacking Israel again.
3) No one says anything about it.
4) Israel retaliates.
5) The West wrings its hands about proportionality and Internet writers blame both sides for the mess.

It would be funny if it weren't so shopworn.

It's like you're reading my post here as a checklist to accomplish.

http://lhote.blogspot.com/2008/12/illegitimate-pro-israel-arguments.html

Your position, Rod, the insane hardline, has been taken by Israel for decades. It has left Israel no safer. If you were a friend to Israel, you'd advocate change. Yet you continue to argue for the same policies that have left Israel materially less safe and have challenged the legitimacy of their government. You know that old definition of insanity....

The post with the most clarity is that above by John Medaille. Demography is clearly not on Israel's side. And without American aid, which is dependent on American public opinion, Israel is most likely in extremely serious trouble. And it does appear that since 1967, American public opinion has been slowly, but steadily, declining for support of Israeli intervention. The comments on this blog show the division.

Look back to the American Revolution for a way forward. Loyalists were expelled from the American colonies throughout the war. Some fought under the King’s flag, but most were just on the wrong side politically. They were expelled from their homes and property without compensation by “committees of safety” and lynch mobs. These Loyalists settled in Canada and today their descendants comprise about 10% of Canada’s population.

http://www.uelac.org/

Roll forward to 2008. Where are the refugee camps teeming with 3 million angry Loyalist descendants? Kingston, Ontario? Niagara-on-the-Lake? How many rockets are fired into Buffalo or Detroit each day. Why don’t the United Empire Loyalists have a militant wing to manage the guerilla war against the thieving rebels? Why doesn’t the US Army have to periodically occupy the Niagara Peninsula? Because after 1815 the Loyalists and their supporters in London decided to accept the reality of the situation on the ground in North America. The Loyalists went to work and formed their own successful society independent of the rebels using their own resources and initiative. There were subsequent opportunities for conflict with the rebels, however further war was avoided through peaceful negotiation. But obviously, from the link above, the Loyalists are not forgotten.

If they truly want to live a normal life, the ball is still in the Palestinians’ court.

@Your Name 11:48am: Alkali, do you seriously expect Israel to adhere to Roman Catholic ideas of just war? On what basis?

1) The precepts of just war theory are widely accepted outside the Catholic tradition. IIRC, Michael Walzer, whose book "Just and Unjust Wars" is a landmark modern discussion of just war theory, is Jewish.

2) I do not see anything specifically Catholic about the notion that the prerequisites to use of military force should include (i) a legitimate objective and (ii) a reasonable likelihood that the use of force will attain that objective. Put another way, I'm reasonably confident the BVM opposes the futile use of military force, but it seems possible that some people might be persuaded of that ethical precept without appealing to Her authority.

I had quite a lot of information in the post I attempted to make. I can't recall all of it. But here's some.

I can't tell the Israelis how to conduct their operations. For all I know, they are doing the right things, I'm not exactly on their need-to-know list. But a few things come to mind:

First, you must target individual enemy fighters. Not their buildings, because they can and will move them, and they will co-locate with civilians as human shieldS. You must target individuals, and capture is preferred to kill, simply because you can exploit a lot more information out of a capture than a kill (and I'm not referring to torture here.) From one individual, you can exploit his entire network. Five or six for the price of one, if you are patient and persistent. :)

Second, you have to take the populace into consideration. This battle is largely one of influence. It is pyschological terrain, and not physical terrain, that must be captured and held. It is key personnel who must be influenced positively - people who can influence twenty or thirty other men. You have to be out there countering the enemy's influence. And he is likely offering humanitarian services with one hand, and cruelly punishing disloyalty to the cause with the other.

And the media is another part of this battle. You have to be pro-active about the media, you need to throw out your own take on things, to counter all those images of protesters and rubble, because it's not all protesters and rubble, that's just what's got the media's attention. You need bright and articulate people, to put into words your perspective in the widest forums possible. Without veering into propaganda. (This is tough in the Middle East, where no one trusts the official media.)

When you've honestly screwed up, you need to issue apologies and even compensation to victims' families. This is not kow-towing to the enemy. Civilians are not your enemy, they are human beings, and acknowledgement of this fact will help. Send in medical supplies, and doctors, behind enemy lines. You can and you must sway neutral and enemy-favoring populations to your cause.

You need human beings, on foot, at the street level, countering the militants. Israel no longer has this option, since they have withdrawn from Gaza. I have no idea how you can conduct targeted operations without eyes on the ground confirming target identity. I assume and hope Israel has people, notwithstanding that it has no official forces on the ground. Certainly, re-occupying would make the current media maelstrom look insignificant. And you'd certainly lose your battle for influence if you had to take that step.

Finally, you need a conceivable end state. What is the status quo that your side needs to achieve? What is theirs? And they need to give up on "wiping Israel off the map." It's simply not going to happen. The Palestinians need to produce some politicians and statesmen who will agree to a desirable end state. But even this will be meaningless if they can't bring the vast majority of the civilian populace aboard. On the Israeli side, a General Petraeus is needed. Someone who is given permission to take risks, someone with enough power that Israel's politicians and forces will commit to his ideas. He or she needn't be a General. In Iraq, it was the U.S. military that was doing the heavy lifting, and so the U.S. military was the logical agent for change. Petraeus' ideas were put into effect immediately and without exception because they were military orders, which had to be followed.

These lessons were hard-learned in Iraq. And unfortunately, most of the answers we came up with may not work in Palestine. But I would be very happy to see the questions asked. And I would hope that there are several Americans with expertise who are consulting with Israel on some level, official or otherwise.

Ah well, that's more than enough, anyway. Anyone's who been involved in targeting operations in Iraq has learned a few things, especially in the past 18 months or so as the counter-insurgency strategy has taken hold.

'No supernatural agency is responsible here--just the bad choices of angry men on both sides of the fence. That won't be fixed by demonizing one side or the other.

You could turn this around just as easily, and ask "Why don't Palestinians do the right thing, commit suicide?" They are trapped in a cage. Where are their peaceful options? Where are the jobs, the investment, the education for them? They don't have schools, medical care or freedom of movement. ...When my daughter tried to talk to women about the future for their children, they told her sadly, "There is no future here."'

Sig, thanks for that. It is hard for Americans to understand the situation from the Palestinian perspective. But behind the fighters with rockets who insist they want to destroy Israel is a real population of human beings.

One slight correction: Let them go slug it out, and we'll just deal with the survivors.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

" alkali
December 29, 2008 11:01 AM

[To make a point I recently made in a related thread at Volokh:]

I would note that under just war theory, a state can't commence use of military force without a serious prospect of success in reaching the legitimate objective (i.e., force can't be used if the use of force is futile). That is a standard separate from the standard that if force is permissible, it must be used with proportionality.

The question that Israel's military response raises in my mind is what the legitimate objective of that action is, and whether the action is reasonably likely to achieve that objective. Wanting to "hit back, hard," without more, is not a legitimate military objective."

Alkali, you bring up a very good point here. You have to have precise goals in mind, and you have to factor in the full spectrum battlefield I began to describe that really long post (media, influence, precision targeting, etc.) Blind reactionary violence will get you nowhere. It will literally lock you into a cycle of reaction. You will no longer be directing or influencing events. Indeed, you may end up playing into your enemy's hands.

And this isn't Catholic reasoning, it's basic good planning.

AB - Thanks. I suppose I shouldn't have used the word "neutral", but I couldn't think of a concise way of saying "susceptible to being convinced that they ought to back the counterinsurgents & not the insurgents". With the Iraqis who participated in the Anbar Awakening, such susceptibility was present. My concern is that the Palestinians, with their "fifty years of rather vitriolic differences with Israelis", may not be similarly susceptible. I hope such a concern is misplaced; I fear that it is not.

This whole thing needs to be turned on its ear. No one is going to convince the Palestinians to support the Israeli military operations. It's not going to happen. Rather, the susceptibility (man that was hard to spell!) must lie in something like this:

"The status quo has not achieved peace, security or opportunity for our children. We have tried Fatah and Hamas' political platform, which has been, No Compromise. Though their valor and resolve are inspiring, and though they have delivered some basic medical and food aid, we have watched peace deals evaporate, one after another. Militant rockets, which haven't even killed very many Israelis, have resulted in massive aerial and ground operations against, us, the people of Palestine. This isn't working anymore. We must try something different."

There is potential there. Every word of it is true. But change must come voluntarily, as it did among the Sunni tribesmen. On some level, it has to be a Palestinian-owned idea, even if some of its elements are Western-authored. Ideally, the government of Jordan or the Islamic Red Crescent or a similarly prominent organization could back these ideas, as a replacement for the tribal chains of influence in Iraq.

"Why, then, has Egypt sealed its border with Gaza?"

Because Egypt does the U.S. bidding in the Middle East and therefore needs to appease its masters in Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon? Because Egypt is afraid that if they don't cooperate with Israel, they are next on the hit list?

Perhaps it is also useful to remember that at least Israel has an honest enemy in Hamas, whereas, in the 1990's, it had to deal with Harvey Dent (aka Yasser Arafat) otherwise known as "Two-Face."

sigaliris,
I think that a more honest and useful answer for your daughter to have given would have been something like, "it's not that Americans hate you. Not at all. It's the violent hatred towards the Jewish people that they despise. It's the propaganda on your television that makes them unhappy with you. It's the fact that your leaders won't negotiate or compromise or even look out for your people's best interest which makes Americans mad. If America thought for a moment that there was a way to give you and your children all of the freedom, opportunity and support you needed to succeed without putting Israel at risk, they would use every tool they had to make that happen."

Telling them that we just don't know them is neither helpful or true. I hate knowing that there are so many people living in terrible conditions with no future. I can understand why being treated as they have been treated makes people hateful and unforgiving. I think that Israel has made its fair share of mistakes in dealing with this situation. However, at the end of the day it is the violent, murderous and uncompromising hatred of Israel which has kept this situation going for so long. I don't have a particular problem with holding Israel to account for her actions when they are clearly out-of-bounds (taking down an apartment building for example). However, unless there is even more pressure on the Palestinians to learn to live and play with the Israelis, the situation is hopeless. Unfortunately, on the world stage, there are few who are willing to do this. They are so busy telling them that Israel is wrong, that they are the victim and generally coddling them in their unrepentant, unthinking hatred that this conflict could well go on forever.

Rod,
You ask why Israel won't commit suicide. I think I have a more helpful question. Why won't Israel treat it's illegal settlers like they do terrorists? The illegal settlers are keeping the war going just as much as the terrorists. A few targeted airstrikes would do a lot to tell the Palestinian people that they don't just plan on taking more territory the next time. It would also tell the settler movement that, not only couldn't they expect to receive protection from the Israeli army, as they currently do, but that they would actually have to fight the Israeli army.
Of course, this would be political suicide. And that's the problem. Israelis in general want to look at the settlers as a minor problem instead of an integral part of the problem. And, I know that settlers clash with Israeli army all the time. But not with the Israeli army firing bullets, knocking down houses with tanks, etc. as they do to Palestinians. The army instead comes in, forcibly removes a few people, and leaves so that the settlers can go and take over the illegal settlements again.
Don't get me wrong. Illegal settlements are not as morally repugnant as suicide bombs. But, they are an integral part of the problem. As many commenters have pointed out, Israelis have no reason to trust the Palestinians even if an agreement could be reached. Unfortunately, Palestinians have no reason to trust the Israelis or the Israeli government either.

None of the foregoing really changes the fact that the Israeli response was disproportionate. I have read that rockets have killed 15 Israelis since 2004. If so, that is almost four deaths per year. Israel's initial strike killed hundreds, undoubtedly killing many civilians. A proportionate response would be to use intelligence etc. to ascertain the persons responsible for the rocket-launchings, particularly those resulting in deaths, who could then be dealt with. It is wrong to collectively punish everyone for murders perpetrarted by a relatively small number of murderers.

Voting for Hamas doesn't make each Gazan guilty of murder through rocket-launchings, anymore than voting Republican makes every citizen of the U.S. guilty of the current administration's unjust wars, tortures & other war crimes. If somebody were to bomb you or me & our families and cities and justify it on the foregoing basis, I trust neither one of us would have any problem seeing or explaining how unjust that was.

We need to consider the timing of all these attacks. I think it is really aimed at testing the incoming Obama administration or at least putting them on notice. And so far the Obama people, like Axelrod have played along just fine.

Israel is really far more interested in what goes on in DC than in Gaza. And for good reason. Isreali elections are in several months and it is likely the Likud will be the winner.

Rod,

I know you have great understanding of backyard chicken coops and their importance, you obviously have none about the Middle East. Why not stay with what you know?

So, Jim, from your great depth of understanding, please enlighten us. What should the Israelis do about Hamas flinging rockets at their cities? What should responsible Palestinians do about Hamas flinging rockets at Israeli cities? What should a President Obama do?
I bet you don't know anything about chickens, either.

I don't care about Gaza, I don't care about the West Bank, and I don't care for any other region of the Mid-East that is led by islamofascists. I. Just. Don't. Care.

There can be no peace until the war is won, so Israel should lance the boil and get it over with.

"What should Israel do?"

Get the settlements out of the West Bank - now.

"What should Palestine do?"

Realize that they are up against two enemies with far superior wealth and military might and accept the return of the occupied land as the best they can hope for.

"lance the boil," Doug? What does that mean to you? Does that mean exterminating Palestinians until they can no longer offer any resistance? No matter how many women, children, and non-combatant men you have to kill in the process? Face up to the consequences of your proposals, don't hide behind a misleading metaphor. (And a particularly unfortunate one at that, since it reduces Palestinians to the status of bacteria.)

"The leaders of Hamas are the implacable enemies of Israel in just such a way," says Lancelot. Which is interesting, in view of the fact that Israel actually funded Hamas for years, in an attempt to create factional strife between Hamas and the PLO. It looks as if they committed the same mistake the U.S. did when we fostered the growth of the Taliban.

The Palestinians used to do a thriving business in export of citrus fruit. The Israelis bulldozed their orange groves, claiming they gave shelter to snipers. They also bulldozed olive groves and allowed illegal settlers to shoot at and beat up Palestinians trying to harvest their crops. They've bombed factories, either by accident or on the theory that large buildings might harbor terrorists. How is it possible for people to lead a normal life, develop a peaceful economy, and create a future for themselves under those circumstances?

I'll save you all the trouble of pelting me with straw man body parts by emphasizing that NONE of this means I support Hamas, or any kind of terrorism. I don't want Israel destroyed, and I am not an enemy of Israel. But I'm astonished that so many good Christians still embrace the idea that killing large numbers of people and reducing more of them to destitution is the best and most expedient road to peace. Is that what Jesus taught? Is that what you mean by "Prince of Peace"--the guy with the most tanks wins?

Good points, again, AnotherBeliever. It seems to me that when positions are so entrenched, as they are among so many on all sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there needs to be really fresh thinking about how to move forward.

There are many peace initiatives and peace groups that encompass both Israelis and Palestinians, and there are people like me who want a two-state solution, and there are people who think there will never be peace. But the truth is (IMO) that it doesn't seem like anyone's entrenched position, whatever it is, is actually working to bring about any progress.

Peace isn't breaking out despite the efforts of so many well-intentioned people. And Israel is probably not going to commit suicide or go away, in spite of those who hate Israel. And Hamas leaders aren't going to wake up one morning and tear up the charter.

It seems to me that nobody has the solution. To state the obvious...