Comments on: Another five comments on the situation

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:28:18 +0000

Hi Gabriel,

Your post seems to suggest you endorse the racism of valuing a ‘cute white girl’ over a ‘black man dying of drug overdose’, but I assume you don’t. Even with the moral issues involved – that the man dying of the overdose has some responsibility for his situation, he doesn’t deserve to die, and innocents will almost certainly be affected. I think media hysteria over missing children is ludicrous, exploitative and hypocritical.

Family / emotional ties are a more complicated matter, I’m sympathetic to Camus’ stance on this; however, if I had any choice, I certainly wouldn’t agree to the (probable) death of 100 (civilian) strangers to lessen even a high risk of a family member dying (because that’s what we’re really talking about, not the doomed-to-remain-hypothetical ’straight swap’).

Pleading ‘reality’ does not strengthen your case. For every American who thinks like that I could show you another who detests that kind of nationalism.

By: Rankin Mike

Rankin Mike — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:19:33 +0000

Why Livni – and why not Meretz?

By: Gabriel

Gabriel — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:04:46 +0000

“Despite all that, I agree with your final comment about thinking towards a sustainable peace. I just no longer think I have any idea of what to do.”

You really never know what will bring hope. The biggest push for peace happened in the early 90’s as a result of the first Intifada (in Israel) and The Gulf War (US pressure on Israel).

“and the justifications seem to be thin to non-existent unless you think that Palestinian civilians’ lives are less important than Israeli ones.”

This is the type of rational I see a lot which I think comes out of countries that have not seen large civilian losses for a long time. Of course, in the great balance of the world, one civilian life is worth one civilian life. However, in reality, it is not like that. Americans care more about American lives than they do about Swedish lives and vice versa. Even within countries, the life of a cute little white girl who goes missing is worth more than a black man who dies of a drug overdose. I don’t know anyone who would save the lives of 100 strangers if it meant the death of their son.

By: Alex Stein

Alex Stein — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 08:35:57 +0000

I don’t think Israel has a monopoly on violence, anymore than McDonalds has a monopoly on the fast-food industry as long as Burger King continues to exist. What is true to say, however, is that Israel is far, far, far more powerful than Hamas. That’s something people should be thankful for.
The justification is this: Hamas have continued for eight years, whatever the circumstances, to rain down thousands of rockets on Israeli citizens living in the south of the country. After the end of the latest ceasefire, they continued with this course of action (in full knowledge, btw, that there was an Israeli election coming up – is that not rather revealing of their true aims?), as a way of forcing Israel to do the unacceptable: give them freedom of manouvre on the West Bank. The claim that this is about the siege is unreasonable – when the rockets haven’t fallen, the crossings have been relatively open. I do not claim that this will necessarily bring peace, or quiet. This is an ongoing war of attrition; it’s lasted 100 years thus far, maybe it will last another 100 years into the future. Which brings me on to my next point: to argue that achieving a deal right now (two-states, one states, no states, higher states) is impossible is not to subscribe to the notion of a primordial conflict. It’s just looking reality in the fact. It’s easy to see peace as so near from afar; on the ground things look different. The emphasis should be on conflict management, on making peoples lives as good as possible while postponing the issues which we have not managed to surmount, issues we may never be able to surmount. The one constant is that we are destined to share the land together. So share we must.
The candidates are electioneering, but so what? That’s my fault, mine and the rest of the Israeli electorate, that we’re so swayed by, in a word, policy. War is policy too. As long as we are affected by what politicians do, they’ll continue to do stuff to try and win us over. And remember, it cuts both ways: Barak was talking up the French ceasefire last week, while Livni gambled on looking tough.
Despite all that, I agree with your final comment about thinking towards a sustainable peace. I just no longer think I have any idea of what to do.

By: nick

nick — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:26:07 +0000

I agree that that would be absurd. It’s not what I thought I was suggesting – fine. Hamas should stop the rockets, absolutely, and that message should be a clear part of any response to the situation. Protesters who cannot do that forfeit any moral high ground. However, by escalating the situation now (whatever your views on the blockade and whether that constitutes violence) Israel has achieved a monopoly of violence, thus the greater onus on on it to justify that; and the justifications seem to be thin to non-existent unless you think that Palestinian civilians’ lives are less important than Israeli ones. Even if you think that – this is surely not going to make anyone more secure.

Intentionality counts but enough commentators have pointed to ambiguities in Hamas’ position and their internal fragility to suggest that other options aside from military ones are viable, even on the narrowest agenda (i.e. Israeli security / prevention of the rockets).

As for the politics, I am not suggesting some kind of clairvoyant-guided pre-planning ala your Tariq Ali remarks; it just looks like the situation has been exploited so the candidates can appear tough. Hamas too.

One additional point: why do some progressive journalists adopt the terms of the right, punitive terms, talking of proportionalilty? The only relevant factor should be how far the current actions (of all parties) can advance a sustainable peace. Of course that’s possible – you don’t subscribe to some kind of fatalistic belief in primordial conflict now, do you?

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 18:15:45 +0000

Nick – I think it’s absurd to say that Hamas have any less responsibility to stop the rockets (something which is perfectly in their power to do so) than Israel does to – for example – ensure a steady flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. Hamas can have all the legitimacy in the world – I acknowledge that the Palestinians voted for them and they are a real force to be reckoned with.
I think much of what you say is based on the dubious assumption that the conflict is solveable. We haven’t talked about this much (let’s do it February in London at the Gaon’s place – I’ll bring the wine), but I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that it isn’t solveable. As for saying it’s a particularly cynical form of electioneering, did you read point 2? Was Barak clever enough to make Shas force the breakdown of the coalition so that the elections would come one month after Hamas decided to carry on firing rockets once the ceasefire had ended (in the knowledge that there was an election coming up). If so, I’m voting for him on the basis that he’s the cleverest Jew in history, cleverer even than the Vilna Gaon (not to mention the Highbury Gaon). As for your last paragraph, I also agree. What was it that VS Naipaul said?

By: nick

nick — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 11:38:12 +0000

more powerful actors have more responsibility. your all / none argument is an old, tired straw man.

also, to ask your friend to call on hamas to observe a ceasefire is curious, because surely that grants them legitimacy you would otherwise deny? if one party to conflict is held to be fundamentally irrational, it is reasonable to bypass them (making your revulsion clear in passing) and address yourself primarily to the other side. if they’re not the immutably irrational, homogenous, monolithic bloc they’re portrayed as, why isn’t an alternative strategy being formulated?

no-one has shown me convincingly that the current israeli actions make sense, even on narrow, particularist terms. i can’t see beyond this as a particularly cynical version of electioneering, with hamas’ active support / interest. surely hamas is too deeply entrenched in gaza to be destroyed militarily, with a breadth and depth of support that the so-called “resistance” in Iraq never commanded?

as ever, all that seems to happen in these situations is the recycling of cliches (which I don’t exempt myself from!): cliched actions, cliched discourses, renewed suffering.

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:12:19 +0000

Gert: Elfie’s stuff is always interesting, but that’s for entirely different reasons…

Rankin: Yes, I am.

By: Rankin Mike

Rankin Mike — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:35:22 +0000

Alex, are you still voting Livni after the attacks on Gaza that she has just ordered?

By: Gert

Gert — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:18:48 +0000

Trenchant critique of Nir Rosen’s? I had to go, look, see, presto!

Alas, nothing of interest lies therein: the obvious refrain about Palestinians being their own worst enemies, accepted I believe by most that support their cause, is hardly new.

And reading the whole thing one would be left with the impression that the Palestinians’ bad past choices are somehow responsible for Israel’s unabated colonisation of the WB. This is not true. and we need to keep saying it.

Strenger’s piece is unoriginal and far less interesting than Rosen’s: how many commoners understand what you call ‘power differentials’? Not many if you ask me. Or my extended family…

Even Elfie’s (JSF) last piece is more interesting than Strenger’s…