Introduction
The latest stage
in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being played out on newsfeeds
and timelines as we speak. Free from the curatorial process of
professional news editors, who decide which views and perspectives
get aired to a captive audience, subaltern perspectives are now able
to reach a wide audience.
The loss of life
and devastation of infrastructure experienced by the people of Gaza
is both too visceral and too widespread to be denied. In response, a
new apologetic tactic has emerged: an affected neutrality that
recognizes, to some extent, the human rights violations committed by
the Israeli government but attempts to minimize them by dehumanizing
the Palestinians and promoting easily
debunked myths about them, by depicting the conflict as
inevitable and intractable, and attempts to deter activism by
concerned citizens by either a ‘pox on both your houses’ stance
or by engaging in concern
trolling by bringing up other international conflicts that have
higher death tolls or less morally ambiguous combatants. There are
three compelling arguments that can be made against this studied
indifference and for activism by Americans on behalf of the people of
Gaza.
The American Role
The first is
that, unlike many other human rights disasters, the US plays a direct
role in the form of military
aid and political
support
that it gives to Israel. The same is not the case for ISIS, the
Taliban, the Assad regime and its opponents (with
some exceptions). As US citizens, we
have a chance to influence policy and create a better, more just
outcome, even if it is a small one. We also have an obligation to use
that influence in an attempt to prevent injustices committed in our
name or on our dime.
The Nature of
Israel
The second
argument is that Israel is a liberal democracy that can be swayed by
public opinion and is very conscious of its image both abroad and
internally. ISIS and the Assad regime couldn't care less and Saudi
only cares to a small extent. Similarly, we hold liberal democracies
to a higher standard than rag-tag terrorists groups, brutal
dictatorships, or absolute monarchies because they represent the will
of a sovereign people and ostensibly stand on a moral foundation of
consent, consultation, and justice.
Part of that
standard is proportionality in military response. This does not mean
that casualties on either side have to be equal or nearly so, but
that it is illegal when “an attack is launched on a military
objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries
would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military
advantage” (Moreno-Ocampo).This
is clearly the case in regard to the current operation in Gaza where
the military goals include stopping rocket fire that has resulted in
less than three
dozen casualties over the course of a decade and collapsing
tunnels alleged to be used to smuggle parts for the rockets (but are
also known to be used to smuggle
food and medical supplies as well). The military response has
killed over 40 times more civilians than the offense that ostensibly
provoked it. That is the definition of disproportionality.
It might be
objected that Israel is showing great restraint and that they don’t
intentionally kill civilians- why would they when it hurts their
image? Israel IS sensitive to how it is perceived abroad but it is
even more sensitive to internal Israeli opinion and nothing makes
that go sour like military casualties. As Norman Finkelstein has
pointed out during a recent speech, “Israel’s first rule is to
minimize combatant casualties.” One way of achieving this goal is
by indiscriminate
bombing that leaves little standing in its wake. He also
mentions other motivations such as revenge for IDF casualties and a
strategic
goal of using widespread bombing to cow the Palestinians into
submission. The argument that Israel is showing 'great restraint'
has been ably
debunked by P.Z. Myers. Needless to say, the good intentions of
the IDF will not bring back the civilians they have killed.
It may be said
that holding the Israeli government to a higher standard than the
Arabs is an example of the 'racism of lower expectations.' I have to
disagree with this. Israel is a state with a liberal democratic form
of government. The Arabs are an ethnic group with a vast degree of
differences among them in terms of forms of government, language, and
cultural features. It's an apples to oranges comparison. My argument
is not that Arabs are not/should not be held to a higher standard,
it's that liberal democratic states are and should be held to a
higher standard than non-state terrorist groups, authoritarian
dictatorships, and absolute monarchies. A state, and especially a
liberal democratic state, enjoys the monopoly of the legitimate use
of force in a given territory. In order for that monopoly to remain
legitimate, it must observe certain moral standards and maintain the
rule of law. Not observing them actually degrades the rule of law,
the enforcement of which is one of the main justifications for the
state's existence.
Tolerance and
even receptiveness to criticism is the strength of an open society.
Nobody does Israel (or the United States, for that matter) any favors
by attempting to shield it from criticism. It is a virtue that Israel
does care about the opinions of its citizens and, to a lesser extent,
it's image in the rest of the world (especially the West). Assad
couldn't care less. Putin couldn't care less. This means that we have
some small means of influencing Israel's actions towards a less
destructive path that we do not have in relation to conflicts
elsewhere in the world.
The Siege
The third
argument is that the siege of Gaza, which
constitutes an ongoing act of war that has cause far more death
and suffering than the rockets fired by Hamas, makes it impossible
for the civilian population to flee. This makes the situation
different, and far more dire, than is the case in Syria, Pakistan,
Iraq, Nigeria, and other countries. There is no safe, neutral ground
to which refugees can flee and receive aid to ease their suffering.
This makes a direct political/social intervention in the conflict
more pressing because it is the only alternative available if a truly
staggering amount of death and suffering is to be avoided. For
example, according
to a UN report, by 2020 Gaza will be incapable of supporting its
population. This is a direct result of Israeli policy aimed not at
an organization but at an entire people.
There are some
who maintain that the occupation of Gaza ended in 2006 with the
withdrawal of Israeli troops and the dismantling of the settlements
there. This is erroneous. An ongoing siege that confines a
population to a small territory cut off from the rest of the world
and that is repeatedly punctuated by bombardment and invasion is
indistinguishable from an occupation, a view with strong
support in both International and Israeli law.
Conclusion
The claim that
the conflict is insoluble because of the tribalism on each side and
the purported religious roots of the conflict obfuscates the actual
material goals of each side, goals that can at least be partially met
via compromise. The settlements, the confiscation of land, the
network of checkpoints that impede free movement by Palestinians,
control of the borders between the territories and their Arab
neighbors, seizure of valuable natural resources, most especially
water, all have a clear, material goal: increasing the level of
control that Israel has over the Palestinian people and increasing
Israel's own strategic depth vis-à-vis its neighbors. Hamas also
has
outlined clear material goals (based on international law) the
satisfaction of which would lead to a long term truce. A treaty that
met the material goals of the Palestinian people while at the same
time giving Israel security from its neighbors would make the
settlements and checkpoints unnecessary and would allow the
Palestinians to rebuild their lives, undermining calls for further
violence on both sides. The Palestinians have a clear
record of supporting a resolution to the conflict on the basis of
international law. It is Israel that remains recalcitrant in regards
to its obligations and we have a duty, as Americans whose government
has given so much support to Israel, to hold it accountable.
It has been
pointed out that a great deal of the outrage over the conflict in the
Middle East is selective and that the focus on Israel is due not to a
concern for human rights but to a hatred of Jews. Even if true, this
is beside the point. Haters gonna hate. People quite often do the
right thing for the wrong reason. The question is what motivates you
to take notice and take sides. And have no doubt; not taking sides
when a civilian population is facing siege and bombardment IS taking
sides- against them.
