I wonder what future historians will make of the fact that in the first quarter of the 21st century the world’s Civilised Powers/Western Powers/ authors of a Rule-based World Order, for six whole months (and counting) provided weapons and ammunition to one side in an armed conflict whilst at the same time urging them to stop the devastation they were causing and attempting to provided aid and succour to the other.
The Israeli aggression is justified as retaliation in response to the murderous attack by the organisation Hamas on innocent Israeli civilians.
But one of the principles of Just War Theory is that any armed response should be proportionate to the offence given: in Hebrew Bible terms, no more than “an eye for an eye.” (Exodus 21 verse24).
This level of retaliation for the murder of 1100 innocents and the taking of a 240 hostages was probably reached within a few days, if not hours, of the October 7th atrocity. That the “war” has continued for six months and taken 32 000 lives, mostly innocent, is, as the Guardian put it, “unconscionable.” (Leader, 3rd April).
That we should find it acceptable to continue to supply Israel with arms to enable them to continue with these atrocities "beggars belief" (that phrase again.)
Part of the problem is the loose way in which we use term “war.” My dictionary defines it as “armed conflict, ‘usually’ between sovereign states.”
Yet we now talk glibly about “wars” on obesity, crime, drugs, illiteracy . . . It sounds “macho” and appeals to politicians wanting to appear tough and be taking effective action. The effective solutions such as regulation of the food industry, employing more police and probation officers, rehabilitation fiscalities for offenders, recruiting effective teachers and paying them generously, don’t quite have the same ring.
These wars on concepts do not have a good record of success.
George W Bush’s “War on Terror” has been totally counter-productive. Its 20 years of armed action has resulted in 70 000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan and the Taliban, who may or may not have had a hand in the atrocity of 11th September 2001, are in firmer control than ever.
I suggest that the proper response to the Twin Towers slaughter should have been a police action, and a similar approach should be taken to bringing the perpetrators of the 7th October massacre to justice. It would need, of course, armed police, preferably international, and to be evidence lead. It would be messy, and probably still involve unmerited violence and death. But preferable to the wholesale slaughter and starvation of the civilian population.
Of course, Just War theory assumes that retaliation is a justifiable response. Maybe so, but it is more likely to perpetuate the problem than to solve it.
What is needed, is, if not forgiveness, at least willingness by both sides to accept the terrible wrongs done to them, agree to put them behind them and live, albeit initially uneasily, together.
Nelson Mandela showed it could be done in South Africa. We need a couple of politicians with Mandela-like realism and forbearance to emerge in Palestine.
The Israeli aggression is justified as retaliation in response to the murderous attack by the organisation Hamas on innocent Israeli civilians.
ReplyDeleteIt’s not a ‘retaliation in response’.
It’s a nation dealing with an imminent threat to the security of its citizens by removing the source of that threat.
Hamas has demonstrated that it is willing and able to indiscriminately kill, rape and abduct citizens of Israel, and has made statements that it intends to keep doing so: that the 7th of October was only the start of their campaign.
Therefore Israel must act to neutralise this clear threat to its citizens.
This level of retaliation for the murder of 1100 innocents and the taking of a 240 hostages was probably reached within a few days, if not hours, of the October 7th atrocity.
Now that’s a bizarre statement. For one thing, the first Israeli strikes on Gaza didn’t take place until the 11th of October so I have no idea what you could mean when you talk about some level being reached ‘within a few days, if not hours’. What exactly are you referring to that happened within ‘a few days, if not hours’ of October the 7th?
But more to the point, again, the duty of Israel is not to reach some sufficient ‘level of retaliation’ as if this were some kind of playground slight for which the transgressor needs to be sufficiently humiliated. What a childish way of looking at a war!
Israel’s duty is to protect its citizens, which means that its job is not done until Hamas is destroyed to the extent that it is not possible for it to continue its 7th-October style attacks on innocent Israeli citizens.
That the “war” has continued for six months and taken 32 000 lives, mostly innocent, is, as the Guardian put it, “unconscionable.” (Leader, 3rd April).
The war has not taken 32,000 lives; and those lives that have been taken have not been ‘mostly innocents’ as more than half of them have been Hamas soldiers. Casualty figures from Hamas are lies.
What is needed, is, if not forgiveness, at least willingness by both sides to accept the terrible wrongs done to them, agree to put them behind them and live, albeit initially uneasily, together.
Which was the situation prior to the 7th of October. Hamas have declared that if such a thing is attempted again they will mount another attack as they did in the 7th of October, and another, and another, and another, war without end.
Therefore all Israel can do to protect its citizens is destroy Hamas utterly — because Hamas have proved and stated that any attempt at peaceful co-existence will lead to a repeat of the 7th of October.
Thanks as always for your detailed comments and criticisms.
ReplyDeleteIf the Israeli response did not take place until four days after the Hamas atrocity I apologise for suggesting a proportionate equivalence of injury could have been reached “within a few hours.” That doesn’t alter the fact that the continued attacks on Gaza and its people after six months are totally disproportionate.
You claim that “almost half” of the 32 00 dead (now 33 000) are Hamas soldiers is barely credible. The overwhelming majority must be women, children and and man who happen to live there but are not actively involved in Hamas.
However, you are right to say that “retaliation” or revenge” is not the only motive of the Israeli government: they want to “wipe out Hamas.” But you have to consider that this ”obliteration” course could make matters worse. The “war on terror” has had no success in Afghanistan, and the “war on drugs” is so far a losing battle in most places where it is being tried.
The continued savage attacks on Gaza and the attempt to starve out the people who live there could increase support for Hamas, whom we might designate as “terrorists” but Palestinians might regard as “freedom fighters.” Somebody has said “You can’t make war on an idea.”
The way ahead has got to be the realisation by both parties that the only peaceful way forward is by agreement to ”let bygones be bygones” and make the necessary to cessions to tolerate coexistence.
“Mandelas” are need on both sides
That doesn’t alter the fact that the continued attacks on Gaza and its people after six months are totally disproportionate.
DeleteNo, they are not disproportionate at all. The point of proportionality is that the collateral civilian damage caused must be proportional to the military and strategic value of the target. By any measure this is true of Israel’s operations in Gaza.
Of course Israel tries to avoid all civilian deaths, and would prefer not to kill a single civilian. It is Hamas, not Israel, that is causing civilian deaths in Gaza, by using the population as human shields.
You claim that “almost half” of the 32 00 dead (now 33 000) are Hamas soldiers is barely credible. The overwhelming majority must be women, children and and man who happen to live there but are not actively involved in Hamas.
No, that’s what Hamas wants you to believe. But it is a lie. The ratio of Hamas combatant deaths to civilian deaths caused by Israeli actions in Gaza is close to 50/50 — which is incredibly good for close urban warfare.
And of course a lot of civilians in Gaza are being killed directly by Hamas as their weapons misfire, such as the explosion in the hospital early in the conflict that was claimed to be an Israeli strike but eventually turned it out be a Hamas rocket aimed at Israel that had gone awry.
But you have to consider that this ”obliteration” course could make matters worse.
How? What could possibly be ‘worse’ than living with a death-cult that wants to exterminate you, and that is backed by one of the major regional powers, and that has shown it is willing and able to massacre you, just across the border?
Pretty much the only thing ‘worse’ than that that i can think of would be open nuclear warfare with Iran.
The continued savage attacks on Gaza and the attempt to starve out the people who live there could increase support for Hamas,
Again: how would that be ‘worse’ than the 7th of October happening over again and again and again and again?
whom we might designate as “terrorists” but Palestinians might regard as “freedom fighters.”
Do you think it matters how the person raping you is ‘designated’? Or does it just matter that your government kills then before they rape you?
The way ahead has got to be the realisation by both parties that the only peaceful way forward is by agreement to ”let bygones be bygones” and make the necessary to cessions to tolerate coexistence.
They tried that. The result was the 7th of October. Try it again, the result will be the 7th of October again.
That’s the truth. That’s what you need to face.
Tis with our judgement as our watches, None
ReplyDeleteGo just alike, but each believes his own.
Alexander Pope.
Read this
Https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/07/six-months-war-in-gaza-israel-allies
I leave it at that.
Read this
DeleteI have read it. If you read it and you didn’t know better, you’d think that Hamas (a word which appears in the article only twice!) had staged a peaceful demonstration, in response to which Israel launched an all-out attack on the civilian population of Gaza with the intent of ethnically cleansing the whole area.
Which is so completely the opposite of what actually happened that I think no more needs be said.
I presume your top hero of the Second World War is Neville Chamberlain, and you think that if only there had been another push to sort things out with that nice Herr Hitler, and for both sides to work things out and come to an arrangement, then a lot of unnecessary bloodshed could have been avoided?