If Israel has the right to use force in self defence, so do its neighbours

[RSM]

If Israel has the right to use force in self defence, so do its neighbours

The west appears to insist that only one side in the conflict is able to intervene militarily across borders. That will never be accepted

Ahmad Samih Khalidi
Tuesday July 18, 2006
The Guardian


Much has been made in recent days - at the G8 summit and elsewhere - of Israel's right to retaliate against the capture of its soldiers, or attacks on its troops on its own sovereign territory. Some, such as those in the US administration, seem to believe that Israel has an unqualified licence to hit back at its enemies no matter what the cost. And even those willing to recognise that there may be a problem tend to couch it in terms of Israel's "disproportionate use of force" rather than its basic right to take military action.

But what is at stake here is not proportionality or the issue of self-defence, but symmetry and equivalence. Israel is staking a claim to the exclusive use of force as an instrument of policy and punishment, and is seeking to deny any opposing state or non-state actor a similar right. It is also largely succeeding in portraying its own "right to self-defence" as beyond question, while denying anyone else the same. And the international community is effectively endorsing Israel's stance on both counts.

From an Arab point of view this cannot be right. There is no reason in the world why Israel should be able to enter Arab sovereign soil to occupy, destroy, kidnap and eliminate its perceived foes - repeatedly, with impunity and without restraint - while the Arab side cannot do the same. And if the Arab states are unable or unwilling to do so then the job should fall to those who can.

It is important to bear in mind that in both the case of the Hamas raid that led to the invasion of Gaza and the Hizbullah attack that led to the assault on Lebanon it was Israel's regular armed forces, not its civilians, that were targeted. It is hard to see how this can be filed under the rubric of "terrorism", rather than a straightforward tactical defeat for Israel's much-vaunted military machine; one that Israel seems loth to acknowledge.

Some of this has to do with the paradox of power: the stronger the Israeli army becomes, the more susceptible and vulnerable it becomes to even a minor setback. The loss of even one tank, the capture of one soldier or damage done to one warship has a negative-multiplier effect: Israel's "deterrent" power is dented out of all proportion to the act itself. Israel's retaliation is thus partly a matter of restoring its deterrence, partly sheer vengeance, and partly an attempt to compel its adversaries to do its bidding.

But there is also something else at work: Israel's fear of acknowledging any form of equivalence between the two sides. And it is precisely this that seems to provide the moral and psychological underpinning for Israel's ongoing assault in both Gaza and Lebanon - the sense that it may have met its match in audacity, tactical ingenuity and "clean" military action from an adversary who may even have learned a thing or two from Israel itself, and may be capable of learning even more in the future.

There has of course been nothing "clean" about Israeli military action throughout the many decades of conflict in Palestine and Lebanon. Israel's wanton disregard for civilian life during the past few days is neither new nor out of character. For those complaining about violations of Israeli sovereignty by Hizbullah or Hamas, it may be useful to recall the tens of thousands of Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty since the late 60s, the massive air raids of the mid-70s and early 80s, the 1978 and 1982 invasions and occupation of the capital Beirut, the hundreds of thousands of refugees, the 28-year-old buffer zone and proxy force set up in southern Lebanon, the assassinations, car bombs, and massacres, and finally the continuing violations of Lebanese soil, airspace and territorial waters and the detention of Lebanese prisoners even after Israel's withdrawal in 2000.

It is unnecessary here to recount the full range of Israel's violations of Palestinian "sovereignty", not least of which is its recent refusal to accept the sovereign electoral choice of the Palestinian people. Israel's extraterritorial, extrajudicial execution of Palestinian leaders and activists began in the early 70s and has not ceased since. But for those seeking further enlightenment about Hamas's recent action, the fact is that some 650,000 acts of imprisonment have taken place since the occupation began in 1967, and that 9,000 Palestinians are currently in Israel's jails, including some 50 old-timers incarcerated before and despite the 1993 Oslo accords, and many others whom Israel refuses to release on the grounds that they have "blood on their hands", as if only one side in this conflict was culpable, or the value of one kind of human blood was superior to another.

If there ever was a case for establishing some form of mutually acknowledged parity regarding the ground rules of the conflict, Hamas and Hizbullah have a good one to make. And if there ever was a case for demonstrating that what is good on one side of the border should also good on the other, Hamas and Hizbullah's logic has strong appeal to Arab and Muslim public opinion - regardless of what the supine Arab state system may say.

Indeed as George Bush and other western leaders splutter on about freedom, democracy, and Israel's right to defend itself, Tony Blair's repeated claim that events in the region should not be linked to terrible events elsewhere is looking increasingly fatuous.

The slowly expanding war in Afghanistan, the devastation of Iraq, the death and destruction in Gaza and the bombing of Beirut are all providing a slow but sure drip feed for those who believe that the west is incapable of taking a balanced moral stance, and is directly or indirectly complicit in a design meant to break Arab and Muslim will and subjugate it to untrammelled Israeli force.

Contrary to what Blair seems to believe, the use of force is unlikely to breed western style-liberalism and moderation. What is at issue here is not democracy but the right to resist Israeli arrogance and be treated on a par with it in every respect, including the use of force. If Israel has the right to "defend itself" then so has everyone else.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the history of the region to suggest that Israel's destruction of mass popular movements such as Hamas or Hizbullah (even if this were possible) would drive their successors closer to western-style democracy, and every reason to believe the opposite. Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 did away with the PLO and produced Hizbullah instead, the incarceration and elimination of Arafat only served to strengthen Hamas, and the wars in Afghanistan, the Gulf and Iraq gave birth to Bin Ladenist terrorism and extended its reach and appeal. And we should not be surprised if the summer of 2006 produces more of the same.

However Israel's latest adventure ends, it will not produce greater sympathy and understanding between west and east, or a downturn in extremism. Indeed the most likely outcome is that a new wave of virulent and possibly unconventional anti-western terrorism may well crash against this and other shores. We will all - Israelis, Arabs and westerners - suffer as a result.

· Ahmad Samih Khalidi is a senior associate member of St Antony's College, Oxford, a former Palestinian negotiator and the co-author, with Hussein Agha, of A Framework for a Palestinian National Security Doctrine (Chatham House, 2006)

[Stu Monty]

All very true. The fact that you have no money for tanks and helicopters seems to be the defining factor that makes you a terrorist.

They're just as bad as all those Dutch, French and British terrorists in the early forties. How dare they fight an oppressing, occupying force.

[Kopite]

Fancy The Guardian to do a piece that is against Israel. I am shocked.

[Nunavut Patrick]

Hmmm..how to overcome an occupying force.

Answers on a postcard to:

Gandhi
Indian Salt Company
Bombay, India


Nelson Mandela
Republic of South Africa

[DJLJ]

Originally Posted by Nunavut Patrick

Hmmm..how to overcome an occupying force.

Answers on a postcard to:

Gandhi
Indian Salt Company
Bombay, India


Nelson Mandela
Republic of South Africa

I would think the French would have more use for this, if you included a piece on how to win a war...

[Slam Daniels]

Any chance you guys could start using monosyllabic words?

[Jose Jones]

Originally Posted by Stu Monty

All very true. The fact that you have no money for tanks and helicopters seems to be the defining factor that makes you a terrorist.

They're just as bad as all those Dutch, French and British terrorists in the early forties. How dare they fight an oppressing, occupying force.

I agree with most of the points in that article, and I understand what you’re trying to point out here Stu, but I think making glib comments such as this doesn’t really help. The Israeli attacks on Lebanon, horrendously heavy-handed that they are, are directed at terrorists. I’m not talking about the oppression of the Palestinian people here, or previous atrocities by Israel. But to call Hezbollah a popular movement is a fallacy in my opinion, these are terrorist organisations, able to operate out of Lebanon due to the weakness of the Lebanese government after meddling from Syria for so many years. Hezbollah is not a representative of the Lebanese or Palestinian people responding to provocation by Israeli atrocities on the Palestinian population. Hezbollah is an organisation who are fighting to kill as many Israeli citizens and army alike and who’s dedicated goal is to wipe Israel off the map.
If Israel hadn’t bombarded and killed citizens in Lebanon would Hezbollah be attacking Israel? Yes.
Is Israel’s treatment and ghetto-isation of the Palestinians wrong? Undoubtedly.
Is Israel’s attacking of civilians and public targets in Lebanon wrong? Disgracefully wrong and ill judged.
Are Hezbollah the equivalent of the allies in WWII? Bollocks.

[Stu Monty]

Originally Posted by Jose Jones

I agree with most of the points in that article, and I understand what you’re trying to point out here Stu, but I think making glib comments such as this doesn’t really help. The Israeli attacks on Lebanon, horrendously heavy-handed that they are, are directed at terrorists. I’m not talking about the oppression of the Palestinian people here, or previous atrocities by Israel. But to call Hezbollah a popular movement is a fallacy in my opinion, these are terrorist organisations, able to operate out of Lebanon due to the weakness of the Lebanese government after meddling from Syria for so many years. Hezbollah is not a representative of the Lebanese or Palestinian people responding to provocation by Israeli atrocities on the Palestinian population. Hezbollah is an organisation who are fighting to kill as many Israeli citizens and army alike and who’s dedicated goal is to wipe Israel off the map.
If Israel hadn’t bombarded and killed citizens in Lebanon would Hezbollah be attacking Israel? Yes.
Is Israel’s treatment and ghetto-isation of the Palestinians wrong? Undoubtedly.
Is Israel’s attacking of civilians and public targets in Lebanon wrong? Disgracefully wrong and ill judged.
Are Hezbollah the equivalent of the allies in WWII? Bollocks.

I accept that it was a little bit of a saucy comparison but it was to try and get a point across about the interchangeable use of the words terrorist and war whenever it suits certain agendas.

The Hebollah situation is not a simple one but they are fighting for the rights of Arabs. The motivations are obviously going to be very different within the group. There will be factions who are just manically anti-Israeli and don't care about a Palestinian state or the right of Arabs to live with amenities and the ability to work without fear of violence. Then there will be factions that do care about that side of the debate.

If the Israeli's are doing whatever they like, taking and no doubt torturing prisoners, left right and centre then someone has to do something to stop them. If the UN or the international community as a whole won't do anything that leaves you pretty isolated. It doesn't make diplomatic sense for any one arab nation to start an all out war with Israel as they are the regional superpower with the military might. In the end it comes down to an Arab resistance funded by arab countries looking to defend their people.

I'd be interested to see how bitter, twisted and anti-German the British would have become after 30 years of that kind of treatment if we'd have lost the war. Each unjustified death fuelling the hatred and spawning a generation of would be martyrs.

[molbyscorchio]

Originally Posted by Stu Monty

I accept that it was a little bit of a saucy comparison but it was to try and get a point across about the interchangeable use of the words terrorist and war whenever it suits certain agendas.

The Hebollah situation is not a simple one but they are fighting for the rights of Arabs. The motivations are obviously going to be very different within the group. There will be factions who are just manically anti-Israeli and don't care about a Palestinian state or the right of Arabs to live with amenities and the ability to work without fear of violence. Then there will be factions that do care about that side of the debate.

If the Israeli's are doing whatever they like, taking and no doubt torturing prisoners, left right and centre then someone has to do something to stop them. If the UN or the international community as a whole won't do anything that leaves you pretty isolated. It doesn't make diplomatic sense for any one arab nation to start an all out war with Israel as they are the regional superpower with the military might. In the end it comes down to an Arab resistance funded by arab countries looking to defend their people.

I'd be interested to see how bitter, twisted and anti-German the British would have become after 30 years of that kind of treatment if we'd have lost the war. Each unjustified death fuelling the hatred and spawning a generation of would be martyrs.

another interesting hypothesis, Stu - though I agree broadly with your argument. In fact, the intellectual case for Israel existence as a country is far more tenuous than the emotive case. The case for Israel, as it exists today, and as it governs today, has even less in common with logic than that of the former Yugoslavia.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by Kopite

Fancy The Guardian to do a piece that is against Israel. I am shocked.

Daniel Taylor doesn't write the whole thing, you know Col.

[Kopite]

Originally Posted by Paul

Daniel Taylor doesn't write the whole thing, you know Col.

Has he got a problem with Israel too?

The c*nt.

[Big Ig]

Originally Posted by molbyscorchio

another interesting hypothesis, Stu - though I agree broadly with your argument. In fact, the intellectual case for Israel existence as a country is far more tenuous than the emotive case. The case for Israel, as it exists today, and as it governs today, has even less in common with logic than that of the former Yugoslavia.

Very true... it's akin to the Celts claiming a now-submerged part of the Black Sea as it was their ancestral homeland...

[RSM]

Originally Posted by Jose Jones

I agree with most of the points in that article, and I understand what you’re trying to point out here Stu, but I think making glib comments such as this doesn’t really help. The Israeli attacks on Lebanon, horrendously heavy-handed that they are, are directed at terrorists. I’m not talking about the oppression of the Palestinian people here, or previous atrocities by Israel. But to call Hezbollah a popular movement is a fallacy in my opinion, these are terrorist organisations, able to operate out of Lebanon due to the weakness of the Lebanese government after meddling from Syria for so many years. Hezbollah is not a representative of the Lebanese or Palestinian people responding to provocation by Israeli atrocities on the Palestinian population. Hezbollah is an organisation who are fighting to kill as many Israeli citizens and army alike and who’s dedicated goal is to wipe Israel off the map.
If Israel hadn’t bombarded and killed citizens in Lebanon would Hezbollah be attacking Israel? Yes.
Is Israel’s treatment and ghetto-isation of the Palestinians wrong? Undoubtedly.
Is Israel’s attacking of civilians and public targets in Lebanon wrong? Disgracefully wrong and ill judged.
Are Hezbollah the equivalent of the allies in WWII? Bollocks.

Hezbollah were founded in 1982 to fight the Israeli Defense Forces who occupied southern Lebanon.

Why are they a Terrorist Organisation? Becuase they don't wear army uniforms? or becuase they don't shell Israel with F16's and Tanks but instead use gorilla warfare?

Note:
During the week long conflict Isreal has Killed over 200 civillians in Lebanon.

[Spy Bee]

Originally Posted by Big Ig

Very true... it's akin to the Celts claiming a now-submerged part of the Black Sea as it was their ancestral homeland...

So after the initial fuck up, what is the solution?

[biggit]

The roots of this problem trace back to the Empire - Britain promised Palestine as homeland to both the Arabs and the Jews during WWI.

The Jews ended up with backing from the US and got their promises honoured, no-one gave a shit about the Arabs and the rest is just history.

Hezbollah are now getting arms and support from Iran & Syria, making the war slightly less 'assymetric'. Gotta love that Orwellian lingo

As Twain said "History doesn't repeat itself. But it rhymes"

[redrosetints]

Originally Posted by Jose Jones

I agree with most of the points in that article, and I understand what you’re trying to point out here Stu, but I think making glib comments such as this doesn’t really help. The Israeli attacks on Lebanon, horrendously heavy-handed that they are, are directed at terrorists. I’m not talking about the oppression of the Palestinian people here, or previous atrocities by Israel. But to call Hezbollah a popular movement is a fallacy in my opinion, these are terrorist organisations, able to operate out of Lebanon due to the weakness of the Lebanese government after meddling from Syria for so many years. Hezbollah is not a representative of the Lebanese or Palestinian people responding to provocation by Israeli atrocities on the Palestinian population. Hezbollah is an organisation who are fighting to kill as many Israeli citizens and army alike and who’s dedicated goal is to wipe Israel off the map.
If Israel hadn’t bombarded and killed citizens in Lebanon would Hezbollah be attacking Israel? Yes.
Is Israel’s treatment and ghetto-isation of the Palestinians wrong? Undoubtedly.
Is Israel’s attacking of civilians and public targets in Lebanon wrong? Disgracefully wrong and ill judged.
Are Hezbollah the equivalent of the allies in WWII? Bollocks.

Jose my man, are Hezbollah any differnt from the various terrorist/freedom fighteer groups that won Isreal its own state in 48 ? By using bombs, targetting govt (british govt) buildings and generally blowing up places ?

Thats the double standard.

[Big Ig]

Originally Posted by AdamS

So after the initial fuck up, what is the solution?

Stop arselicking one side so blatantly, withdraw aid and sanction Israel like you would any other country doing what they're doing (they'll be changing their ways in a flash, then - Israel's the complete opposite of self-sufficiency IIRC), get rid of the gun-toting west bank settlements completely and create a viable Palestinian state with access to the sea and a land link between Gaza and the West Bank, then pour the same amount of dollars into the new Palestine that Israel got for infrastructure purposes off the US and others, ensuring that it's a viable country with the ability to reduce its levels of poverty.

Keep Palestinians happy, well off and educated (and let's face it, no one but the most extreme pro-Israeli supporter can claim the Palestinians haven't been shat on from a stratospheric height, regardless of what you think of their actions in trying to fight that) and the extremist groups will wither to nothing.

The US has the ability to do something similar to this, but will it? Will it fuck! Obviously the Palestinian armed factions don't help themselves by scoring PR own-goal after PR own-goal with their civilian-aimed attacks...