Facebook has become some kind of a warzone. Although I believe that most of what is posted there about the Israel-Gaza war, and on social media in general, is hateful, biased, and gratuitous, sometimes these platforms can foster well-intentioned debate between rational people with different legitimate opinions. Over the last week, I engaged in such a debate with an acquaintance of mine from the states, Raj, who I believe also cares for humanity and is not out for blood. If you read below, you'll see that at first I was reluctant to get into it, but in the end did engage, and I think the results were fruitful. Debate is important because, if done appropriately, it can outline the shape of the issues in a way that a single screaming person never will. Therefore, I’ve decided to post the debate, which occurred on Facebook on multiple threads over the course of the last week, on my blog. Raj agreed to the posting.
For those not interested in reading all of it, the crystallization (which Raj and I both agree on) is this:
In my words: (1) Israel is occupying the Palestinian territories, which is a problem. We both agree that there should be some two state solution that is a viable nation for the Palestinians, too. (2) There is a moral chasm between Israel and its enemies. Given the same power as Israel, most of its neighbors (including Hamas) would simply commit genocide -- true genocide -- murder of the entire nation.
In Raj’s words: (1) occupation of Palestinians, and (2) existential fear of Israel.
The debate is below, with all links, etc., intact, and with no changes except for fixes to grammar, misspellings, etc. I hope it is useful or at least instructive.
Here's the debate:
My post: WTF world??
Raj: There is more attention to Israel-Palestine perhaps because the world holds Israel to higher moral standards than bombing hospitals?
Raj: More WTF world!
Israel shells UN shelter in Gaza:
Matto: Raj--I read all the same news as you,
Raj: Sure, I wasn't trying to inform you. I am only hoping for a similar outcry against the inhumane acts against Palestinians. There is a great scope for positive change when people like you, who are in Israel and are well connected, start speaking loudly against violence irrespective of who the victims are.
Matto: You’re not educating me. But first off, this is the wrong thread-- this has, or should have, nothing to do with anti-Semitic attacks globally that aren’t even Israel related. Also, your quite biased reporting ignores the circumstances of this war, which are dictated as messy by default due to Hamas tactics alongside the dense population there. Read between the lines a little. I just spoke to a friend who’s been down in Gaza the last days. Can’t believe the things he told me about the tactics of Hamas. Israel makes mistakes, but you can’t judge it with hashtags and flippant posts-- this is a very, very complex war, not to mention the whole situation.
Raj: Again, I am not trying to educate you. If I am trying anything at all, is for you and others connected to you to look beyond the complexity and beyond the details that lead to this war alone. The problem is a chronic one.
What is the heart of the issue? Isn't it the displacement of Palestinians? That needs to be addressed. We can talk about what the bad tactics of PLO, now the Hamas, and who knows what other organization that comes to replace Hamas tomorrow. You don't think that any such organization of Palestinians is likely to be very friendly to Israel when they are living in a ghetto? Gaza has the 6th highest population density in the world.
If we are going to get caught up in the complexities of who said what and who started the conflict this time vs. the last time, I do not believe that will lead us anywhere.
Matto: I agree with you that the displacement / security / situation of the Palestinians is a major issue -- this needs to be addressed if there's going to be any peace. For sure. The question is how, and how to build trust. Again, not trivial. Wish I had solutions...
Raj: The international community has been proposing solutions since 1967. Every year since then the UN security council has passed a resolution supporting the two state settlement, Israel's return to 1967 borders, and a 'just solution' to the refugee situation. The only countries to not accept this plan are the US, Israel, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Palau and Nauru.
In addition, the Human Rights Watch, The International Court of Justice, Amnesty, all echo the very same solution.
The common thread in every attempt to find a resolution are irrelevant blame games like - Hamas/PLO won't recognize Israel, they won't give up violence, etc. These are irrelevant because it sidesteps the possibility of a solution. Recognition of a nation is never required to have a peace treaty and there are no precedents for that.
Everyone agrees that the solution is not trivial. But it must be recognized that Israel has to respect international law and return the land and compensate the refugees. Palestinians do not really have much to offer.
Hits it on the head.
Raj: There surely has been racist undertones in protests voiced against Israel lately. This is a distraction however from the legitimate criticisms of Israel’s actions.
There are several reasons why people (not just western liberals) are offended by Israeli militarism that this article fails to mention. Israel is the only country in the world besides the US that has called for or gone to war so many times in just the last 10 years -
2003 - Heavily supported war in Iraq
2006 - Attacked Lebanon
2008-9 Attacked Gaza
2012 - Called for war with Iran
2014 - Gaza
And every time the justification for these acts is the threat to Israel’s existence. Israel has the strongest military in the region by far and its military response on every occasion has been disproportionately larger.
This article is using the argument that everybody is doing bad things but only Israel gets blamed. This is a weak argument, almost suggesting that Israel has a license to carry out such acts because others do it too. Or perhaps it suggests that people should just stop complaining?
It would be great if there was similar outcry when other nations were committing acts of war/violence, but that doesn’t preclude Israel from the need to be criticized.
And even if you look at the numbers involved, the cumulative casualties in Palestine are non-trivial.
Matto: Raj -- you've ignored the point of this article, the other articles I posted, and my blog. Reasonable debate and argument are one thing -- especially if they take into account the interests of both sides (which your arguments don't -- for example, Israel simply following UN resolutions, despite the fact that the UN will not enforce anything if Israel is then attacked by any or all of its declared enemies, is insane & no country would do it. I’m referring here to a statement you made on another thread of mine). What we see against Israel is none of that. It's racist and anti-Semitic scree (yes, I meant that -- not just anti-Israel anymore), and has nothing to do with reality or anything Israel has done. By the way, Israel wasn't in the 2003 Iraq war, that was the US.
Raj: Matto, I have brought up the central argument of that article, which goes as follows - other countries do bad things, so why are people complaining when Israel does it. I am sure there are interests of Israel which lead it to take whatever action it takes, the question is whether or not those actions are moral and if they are good for Israel in the long term. Paul Krugman has said that "that the narrow-minded policies of the current government are basically a gradual, long-run form of national suicide". I am not happy to make such remarks, but those are the views of the outside world which one hopes the citizens of Israel will consider.
You are seeing legitimate criticisms of Israel from the outside world and it is in the best interests of Israel to not ignore all of them and count them all off as being anti-Semitic. That's all I have to say, I am not interested in attacking your views and neither do I want to or am I qualified for a scholarly debate on this subject. I want to give an honest picture of how the outside world looks at this conflict from their knowledge of the key and broadly agreed upon facts.
Raj: And speaking of debates, you never see a participant presenting both sides of the argument. The responsibility is to present your side logically and factually.
Matto: Raj --
"other countries do bad things, so why are people complaining when Israel does it" – I agree with you. Everyone should be held accountable, including Israel.. to the degree that the offensive isn’t justified, etc. (which is not so clear to me, by the way). People should be allowed to protest for Palestinians and against Israeli actions, etc., but I condemn the vitriolic tone of the protests, and I question why there are such protests against Israel and not against ISIS, or even Hamas. I wouldn't feel comfortable (morally) or safe (physically) joining a rally in Europe against Israeli actions, even if I want to show solidarity with Palestinian citizens. That is something extremely problematic and independent to the particular politics of this war, or of a larger peace deal.
“You are seeing legitimate criticisms of Israel from the outside world” –true. Israel has now and historically not acted anything near perfectly regarding the Palestinian. But you are also seeing a lot of ill informed criticism, and also a lot of criticism that is designed to appeal to a western mindset but coming from the same cynical leaders who fund/support terrorism, and are not interested at all in liberalism or democracy of any sort, anywhere. That’s the problem; it’s extremely difficult to tell these types of criticism apart. When Hamas says that they want just an opening of the blockade, for example, should Israel take them at their word that they are going to settle for anything less than the entire state of Israel?
“I am not interested in attacking your views and neither do I want to or am I qualified for a scholarly debate on this subject” – The same myself. It’s a complex topic and pretending it’s not so is disingenuous, and we’re neither of us political experts. This, actually, is why I’ve focused on an issue that I see as unambiguous – the vitriolic anti-Israeli/anti-Semitic response.
Raj: Like you, I too, as any reasonable person should, condemn the racist tones as seen in some of the protests. However it is very important to ensure that the only voices of Jewish/Israeli outrage that the world hears at this time are not squarely about with the tone of the protests itself, however despicable those are. The article does exactly this - it cites the offensive examples while leaving out the much larger proportion legitimate criticisms of Israel, giving the reader an impression that this is what all criticisms are like.
Where are the Jewish/Israeli voices of outrage about the civilian deaths in Gaza? Why is there large scale support from Israeli citizens for the government? How is the loss of life, now almost a thousand, not an unambiguous issue? The suggestions that the situation is complex, that Hamas is using bad tactics, that Israel is in a tough position - while perhaps true - are by no means any moral grounds for the attacks. Why is it expected that the Palestinians will endure an occupation without revolt and without resistance? Why is it expected that Hamas (or whoever might be the leading Palestinian group at a given time may be) will only use ‘noble’ tactics in their resistance? History regards every single instance of resistance - even violent ones - to occupiers and oppressors as honorable.
While you may not agree, the solution is clear, and at the same time difficult to achieve - Israel must respect international law, which is very clear on Israel’s responsibility.
Hypotheticals like ‘the UN won’t act if Israel is attacked’ are no grounds for avoiding that responsibility, and no grounds for pre-empting attacks. Israel has far superior defenses than any other country in the region. And the UN does not have any real powers anyway - what is it doing now about Gaza besides passing useless resolutions? That is not a legitimate reason for Israel to act illegally and defy international law.
Israel is the occupier.
Matto: I agree with you that a solution close to 1967 borders must be done (some land swaps, etc., make sense) -- this is in essence the two state solution, and there's not really another way about it for the future. I too am frustrated by the continued lack of a compromised solution (in the long term, not just in this war), which also allows self determination and a future for Palestinians. The devil is in the details, and there are people on both sides endlessly happy to derail a peace process. Right wing Israelis are equally to blame. None of that makes the virulent and non-reality-based international response to Israel okay... but you're right, also, that Israel can't use those responses as justification of an occupation, etc., and I didn't mean to imply it. By the way, I am a jewish voice that is saddened and outraged by the deaths of the Palestinians, and the displacements from their homes, etc, in this conflict -- and a lot of others in Israel feel the same. The difference is that I blame a lot of these deaths on Hamas tactics and actually on larger Hamas strategy, and I do believe that the IDF does its best to avoid casualties. We can agree to disagree on that if you'd like. Bombing of a hospital -- they saw gunshots from it (the video is online), they warned people by telephone, etc. this is war and one of the greatest weapons that Hamas has is the suffering of their people. They use it to full advantage.
Raj: It was great to see the news of thousands protesting against the war in Tel Aviv. And equally bewildering to see the right wingers.
Raj: Matt - we can agree to disagree on the details. But glad that we do agree on the larger picture. If only the both parties concerned could do the same, there could be real progress.
My post: This may stroke some people the wrong way, but I consider Sam Harris to be a very important thinker, and what he says is worth considering.
Raj: "And there’s probably little question over the course of fighting multiple wars that the Israelis have done things that amount to war crimes. They have been brutalized by this process—that is, made brutal by it. But that is largely the due to the character of their enemies."
He is literally justifying war crimes.
In summary, he acknowledges facts, then blames the brutalities on the Palestinians themselves. Maybe he expects that a group/nation of people should just sit back while they are being occupied. Is he implying that your enemies on the battlefield should only behave in a way conducive to keeping you from committing atrocities? He excuses soldiers for killing women and children in the heat of the battle, but does not excuse angry rhetoric coming from an occupied people.
I think every reasonable person can agree that people are responsible for their actions. Blaming the course of your actions on the character of others, even if they are your enemy, is illogical, and in this context irresponsible.
His arguments present nothing new, they are the same run of the mill train of 'reasoning' used by those to excuse themselves from criticizing Israel. He forgets the fundamental cause for the conflict - Israel is occupying Palestinian land.
Matto: Raj -- what do you think that Hamas would do if they had the power over Israel that Israel has over Gaza? I am seriously curious your thoughts
Raj: I think they would do really bad things.
Matto: Harris' point is that Israel may have committed war crimes, but that these are the exceptions to the rule, and it is goaded constantly to do this by its enemies. Hamas, in the position of Israel, would have done the opposite -- war crimes as the norm. Actually I personally think that it would just have murdered the entire nation, given the choice. Most of Israel's neighbors would join in given a chance. This cultural difference is also "the fundamental cause for the conflict".
Raj: What Hamas would do in the position of Israel is a hypothetical and a very unrealistic one. It can only be applied if there was some means to magically turn the situation around at the push of a button. I agree, in that case Hamas would do terrible things.
It does not matter whether or not the war crimes are exceptions to the rule or not, a war crime is a war crime is a war crime. It also does not matter if it is claimed that the enemy would have done the same or worse given the chance. None of these arguments and hypotheticals could ever stand in any court of law in defending war crimes.
It is morally reprehensible for anyone to justify war crimes on any grounds, especially if you say your enemies goaded you into doing them. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.
A war crime by definition precludes any justifications.
Matto: All war crimes should be punished, and aren't justified (although not all are equal). But how many of Israel's actions are war crimes? I would wager that few are, and that few if any are Israeli-policy driven, despite the mass outrage and vehement statements of pro-Palestinians. This was essentially the conclusion for example of the 2009 Goldstone Report, done by the UN to investigate Israel's 2008 operation in Gaza. But yes. If Israelis commit true war crimes, they should be punished like everyone else. I don't think that Sam Harris would disagree with this statement.
Matto: By the way, 'what Hamas would do in the position of Israel' is not a hypothetical -- it's a reality that Israel is deathly afraid of. Yes, Israel has the strongest military in the region right now, and there's no serious opponent that could attack it (for example, sure not Syria). But that can easily change, as it has multiple times in the past decades. can you actually pretend that taking the possibility of massive attacks by Israel's neighbors is not something it should consider??
Raj: No Israel should be considering those threats. But why are those threats there in the first place? I just read an extensive interview of Hamas leaders, and they say at least publicly, that their want Israel to go back to 1967 borders, let Palestinians return to their land, lift the Gaza blockade - all these 'demands' are very reasonable and in line with international law - nothing more. They do also say they want Israel to disarm - which is a foolish and unnecessary demand.
But as long as Israel is the occupier in terms of international law, there will be threats, there will be resistance, there is just no way around it. Once and if Israel conforms to the law, then let's see what happens! Let's see then if threats to Israel's existence continue.
I'll also say that the threats from neighbors like Iran and Syria are not 100% due to Palestine, they have their own political agendas. But if the Palestinian conflict is resolved by Israel abiding by the law the political landscape will change, I can't say what it will be like, but that's the right way to go and that's what everybody should be pushing for.
Matto: When Hamas (and most in the Arab world) say 'occupation', they mean 'the 1948 occupation' -- which is the formation of the state of Israel. They are not talking about 1967 borders, they are talking about the existence of the state of Israel. They might be using '1967' rhetoric in this war because it serves their purposes, but that's probably it. here's an example:
This is characteristic of the duplicity displayed by those on that side of the conflict. They will say one thing to their people, and quite another (even using the same word, as here) to the west, to make it sound reasonable.
Matto: Raj -- since you seem to have succeeded in drawing me into some public debate (despite my wishes not to), let's go ahead and crystallize. There are two main issues here, with you intent on the first, and me reminding you of the second: (1) Israel is occupying the Palestinian territories, which is a problem. We both agree that there should be some two state solution that is a viable nation for the Palestinians, too. (2) There is a moral chasm between Israel and its enemies. Given the same power as Israel, most of its neighbors (including Hamas) would simply commit genocide -- true genocide -- murder of the entire nation.
You seem to have no response to point 2 although you tacitly agree. This is also, as I said before, 'the fundamental issue'. Both are. Both are equally fundamental. The one will not go away because of the other, just like it didn't start with the other. Debate, and use your logic, but don't pretend that this is just an issue of international law.
Raj: About the 1948 vs. 1967 - if Hamas is claiming that Israel should retreat to 1948 they are contributing to prolonging the conflict. The world has agreed June 1967 borders and that should be that.
I responded to the moral chasm point in my previous post. You are suggesting that (2) will not go away with (1), and I am suggesting otherwise (at least in some part). I can debate more on the moral chasm point once I know what reasons lead you to your conclusion - i.e. how do you conclude that the neighbors of Israel will continue to seek its destruction even after Israel addresses the occupation and refugees' right of return. And how do you also conclude that 'one didn't start with the other'.
Matto: The Arab states, and the Palestinian leadership and/or people, were intent on the destruction of Israel long before Israel was occupying the west bank and Gaza -- ever since before the state of Israel even formed (I’m genuinely confused, by the way, about how much of the policies of, e.g., Hamas and its predecessors, are supported by Palestinian civilians. if you have good sources that demystify this, I would be happy to read them). Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel. this interview I posted above with Mashaal is telling, because it shows the kind of doubletalk that Hamas will use with the west -- using words like 'occupation' to refer to both 1967 and 1948 (i.e., Israel as a whole) at the same time, and leaving it ambiguous until pressed. However, if you dig just a little, they openly state what they want, especially in their own news channels & to their own people. This is undeniable. You can argue that with the end of occupation of the west bank and the lifting of the blockade on Gaza Hamas will change its policies, but it would have to be a rather drastic change...
Raj: Okay - I have to say I am not 100% sure of those facts myself, but I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you that those are true at least in some vain. While I am not justifying the position of Israel's neighbors AT ALL, I am suggesting that this is a natural outcome when people are dispossessed in their ancestral homelands in the hundreds of thousands. It is fair to say that the Arabs reacted to the Zionist movement foreseeing the migration of Jews into Israel.
Raj: On more reflection on this issue, I agree with you on what the 2 fundamental roots of the conflict are - although I will phrase them a little differently - occupation of Palestinians, and existential fear of Israel.
Now put the two together and you get an explosive situation. The existential fear leads Israel to subjugate Palestine, the subjugation and occupation leads Palestine to revolt and resist, and those in turn raise the fear in Israel and the cycle becomes a self-sustaining one.
You can mathematically model a system of feedbacks like this one. The ONLY outcome of such a system is the eventual 'extinction' of one or the other. Now the question becomes what can be done to not go there.
As far as I see it, the occupation is the only thing where we have any control over. So I see it as the only possible option, even if it means that the fear won't be gone right away.
Raj’s post: What happens when 1.8 million people are imprisoned in an area 1/3 the size of NYC? What happens is that "eventually, the ghetto will fight back. It was true in Soweto and Belfast, and it is true in Gaza. We might not like Hamas or some of its methods, but that is not the same as accepting the proposition that Palestinians should supinely accept the denial of their right to exist as a free people in their ancestral homeland."
So keep using your old excuses of 'Israel needs to defend itself against its neighbors', and 'Palestinians are responsible for their own suffering'. The world is watching. It is truly a shame that people whose grandparents endured unimaginable brutality are now devoid of any empathy and will go to great lengths to make it appear that they are not responsible for this massacre.
Matto: " It is truly a shame that people whose grandparents endured unimaginable brutality are now devoid of any empathy" -- Raj, how can you say such a thing? Frankly, it's asinine. As you and I have discussed, there is a lot of nuance to this and saying that Israelis are simply devoid of empathy is just attacking a straw man. Israelis are not devoid of empathy. People in Israel don't want war, most of them at least. Opinions vary but many of them feel that this war is necessary, at this point, because of threats to Israeli wellbeing (such as the rocket booms I still hear most days in Tel Aviv now). Hamas built a vast network of tunnels and was planning a huge attack for the sole purpose of terrorism -- a fact that was uncovered in this war, and that Israel is now intent on destroying. Is this not relevant to you, nevermind the situation as a whole, but in this current round of violence? You seem to be mixing strategy and tactics. I want you to put yourself in the situation of Israel -- seriously -- after it had rockets sent at it. What would your response have been? Just like I make a habit of putting myself in the shoes of Hamas to understand their perspective (although I never come up with the same solutions that they do), you should do the same. It is ridiculous to make statements about people's inner feelings without having done that, and asked if there's a reasonable psychology to their actions.
Matto: Honestly, I am not sure how I feel about this war myself. But I find one-sided arguments such as yours... whatever the opposite is of "helpful"
Raj: Matto - The conflict is complicated no doubt, but it has become so after 47 years of occupation and displacement. It simply does not matter anymore what the complexities are - the humanitarian disaster ought to trump them all!
Yes, you can blame Hamas as I would too. But that does not address the root causes of this chronic conflict. In our discussion in another thread we agreed that on the 2 fundamental roots of the conflict.
Raj: The argument that Hamas is responsible for the deaths of civilians does not make much sense. Let's assume that it is in fact true that Hamas will go and house rockets where there are civilians (just ignore the fact that Gaza is one of the most densely populated placed on the planet and that realistically you can never really get very far from civilians). So in spite of knowing that Israel sends a bomb? That brings down an entire building? Somehow the tactic of strategic rocket placement has now taken the burden of responsibility off of Israel?
Why is it expected that Hamas will act in a noble way? They are resisting an occupation. History books are full of examples of resistance movements and the tactics they employed, and history looks at those favorably.
Raj: Watch the interview of IDF's Peter Lerner. When asked why did they have to respond to rocket fires when they knew it was coming from near a school.
His response, or lack thereof, is telling. It does not matter whether they intentionally hit the target or not, it does not matter what Hamas' tactics are. What matters is the direct connection between your bombings and civilian deaths. When you see this, and yet continue to support the invasion, it is a serious oversight in humanity. As of yesterday a Times of Israel poll showed more than 90% of Israelis support the invasion. If you say it’s to take away Hamas' capacity for waging war - it should be noted that (a) they are resisting an occupation, a natural human response, and (b) 'Hamas' capacity to wage war' is near ZERO in comparison to Israel's.
Conclusions: There were a few posts after this, but they aren’t in the same tone and aren’t relevant. Raj agreed to have this debate posted on my blog. In keeping with the nature of this conflict, I’ll leave it here with a sense of inconclusiveness. Unfortunately, aside from the crystallization I posted above, there is no convenient way that things wrap up.
No comments:
Post a Comment