Thursday, January 1, 2009

Myths About Gaza & the Misuse of "Disproportionate"

Georgtown professor Robert J. Lieber's article in today's Washington Post should be required reading for anyone commenting on the current Israeli/Palestinian conflict over Gaza. The author attacks at least three myths.

1. Israel is indiscriminately killing civilians. Lieber notes that UN observer reports, hardly a pro-Israel source, indicate that 80%+ of the Palestinian casualties have been "Hamas security personnel or other militants." This is a high rate of precision given the conditions in Gaza, and the terrorists deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians.  Hamas is deliberately targeting civilians. Israel is not.

2. There is no "cycle of violence." Israel is defending itself against constant rocket attacks from Gaza.  If there were no  attack s on Israel from Gaza, Israel would not be  launching air strikes.

3. Hamas and Israel both want peace. Hamas is not interested in peace. They want Israel destroyed. No concessions by Israel will ever satisfy them.

Read the entire article. It's one of the best pieces on the situation I've seen in a mainstream outlet. 

There is one other thing about the conflict that Lieber doesn't specifically mention: the misuse of the word "disproportionate." Just about every critic and enemy of Israel has been calling the Israeli military action disproportionate. Such a use of the term is completely illogical and frankly just plain stupid. Many of the people using it are simply being intellectually dishonest, or allowing their dislike/hatred for Israel to remove their ability for logical reasoning.

Military forces of countries have not and do not respond proportionately to attacks on their homelands. Superior forces in general do not respond proportionately when attacked by inferior force. If you poke a lion, do you expect him to just poke you back? If someone attacks a police officer with a knife, is he expected to pull out a knife of his own, or will he use the superior force of a firearm? When the twin towers were destroyed on 9/11, should the U.S. have responded by destroying a simliar civilian target in Afghanistan? That would have been a proportionate response.

The entire nature of military operations involves bringing superior force to bear against your opponent, to overwhelm him as efficiently as possible, with minimal casualties to your own forces. It is not about giving the enemy a fair fight. Any article about the Gaza situation that accuses Israel of a disproportionate response reveals that the author is either illogical, ignorant of military affairs, intellectually dishonest, an enemy of Israel, or all of the above.

11 comments:

  1. The article is still meh; it doesn't say anything new about the subject. The following drivel passes by test for whether I keep reading or not just because people in Israel believe it, too:

    Predictably, both sides are being urged to call a halt, though in much of the Middle East and parts of Europe these demands, and the blame, fall especially heavily upon the Israelis.

    This suggests to me that Lieber's never talked to any Arab about the I/P conflict except possibly Fouad Azami. Every peace agreement, going back to Oslo, has demanded that the PLO disarm Hamas, but at the same time every initiative since 2000 has called for a demilitarized Palestine. Israel itself has demanded a unilateral ceasefire while offering nothing in return; then, when there was quiet for a few days, it would do something that was bound to enrage the Palestinians into attacking again.

    The other points also disguise some basic numbers - for example, that despite the IDF's policy of not targeting civilians, it still kills far more of them than Hamas. According to Wikipedia's latest, Hamas has killed 3 civilians, whereas the IDF has killed 50-100. Intentions stop mattering beyond a certain point.

    But the real crime in the piece is the myth that "Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005." Israel still controls the Gaza Strip's borders, and has repeatedly destroyed any attempts to establish local infrastructure, like power plants. The Strip is not a sovereign state: it's not allowed to set its own defense and trade policies, or develop independently. Envoys who were familiar with South Africa and who traveled to the Strip have compared the situation there to the pseusdo-independent bantustans the apartheid regime had set up for blacks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "This suggests to me that Lieber's never talked to any Arab about the I/P conflict except possibly Fouad Azami"

    How many rational Arab views on the situation are there? I've seen very few. Most start from the premise that the state of Israel is an abomination, and that everything is Israel's fault.

    " Israel itself has demanded a unilateral ceasefire while offering nothing in return"

    The only side that has made real concessions is Israel, by giving up territory that it conquered. That concession is far greater than anything the Palestinians have been asked to concede.

    "it would do something that was bound to enrage the Palestinians into attacking again."

    The Palestinians are enraged by the mere existance of Israel. Nothing the Israelis could do, other than disappear, would ever satisfy them.

    "it still kills far more of them than Hamas. According to Wikipedia's latest, Hamas has killed 3 civilians, whereas the IDF has killed 50-100. "

    Again, this is nonsense or a complete lack of understanding of military affairs. The reason Hamas has killed less civilians is not from want of trying, it is because they have limited military capability, and because Israel has taken extensive civil defense measures.

    "Intentions stop mattering beyond a certain point."

    Intentions always matter, and ignoring them produces a distorted view of the situation. If the Israelis had the same intentions as Hamas, there would already be tens of thousands of Palestinians dead in Gaza, and the rest would be well on their way to being exterminated. Israel has the military capacity to kill everyone in the Gaza strip. Fortunately Hamas does not have the capacity to kill everyone in Israel.

    "But the real crime in the piece is the myth that "Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005." Israel still controls the Gaza Strip's borders, and has repeatedly destroyed any attempts to establish local infrastructure, like power plants"

    That's called basic commonsense on the part of Israel. Look what even limited autonomy for Gaza has gotten them: a terrorist base on Israel's border. They would have to be insane not to keep as tight control as possible on an area filled with irrevocably hostile elements.

    Comparisons with South Africa are completely ridiculous in my opinion, and nothing more than anti-Israel propaganda. Black South Africans were citizens of South Africa, and massively discriminated against within their own country. The Palestinians are not citizens of Israel and have no desire to be. They are enemies of Israel, and wish to destroy it and take its place. Ask them, they aren't shy about proclaiming it over and over.

    The restrictions that Israel has placed on Gaza are not too strict, they are far too weak, as demonstrated by the fact that Hamas is able to bombard southern Israel with rockets. In my view Israel has been incredibly tolerant and restrained in its actions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. FREE Unlimited Streaming TV Shows, Movies, Music, Games, Money, Books, and College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) http://www.InternetSurfShack.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. Most start from the premise that the state of Israel is an abomination, and that everything is Israel's fault.

    Okay, let me rephrase the question: have you talked to any Arabs? Some are enraged by the existence of Israel. Most aren't. The BBC ran a few man-on-the-street interviews a few days ago; the Israelis interviewed complained about rocket attacks, while the Palestinians complained about being aerially bombed. Until about two years ago, I tracked various polls of Palestinian opinion. It turns out a majority of Palestinians support a two-state solution, and think the intifada's goal should be to achieve independence for a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. There's a sizable minority that wants to destroy Israel - about 40% - but that compares well with the 30% of Israelis who want to keep the occupation.

    Comparisons with South Africa are completely ridiculous in my opinion, and nothing more than anti-Israel propaganda. Black South Africans were citizens of South Africa, and massively discriminated against within their own country.

    This is just semantics. In fact, the apartheid regime shunted black South Africans into a few fractured reservations, called bantustans, and tried to turn them into quasi-independent states. That way the government could say the blacks weren't actually citizens of South Africa, but of separate states. The Gaza Strip and the West Bank are in more or less the same situation - given some autonomy, but no sovereignty or opportunity to develop. For example, some developer built a casino in Jericho in the late 1990s; Israel destroyed it in 2001.

    There are a lot of differences between that and Israel - for a start, Israel picked existing borders, and discriminates against but doesn't oppress Arab-Israelis. The comparison, as made by South African commentators, is about the occupation and the humanitarian situation in the Strip and the West Bank. But a civil rights advocate whose oppressive enemy was supported by Reagan for Cold War reasons might be forgiven for not caring too much about geopolitics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Some are enraged by the existence of Israel. Most aren't."

    I think that's wishful thinking, and it isn't the attitude of the leadership, which is what ultimately matters. People that wanted to peacefully coexist with Israel wouldn't elect Hamas to represent them. They wouldn't cheer terrorist attacks on civilians, raise their children to hate Jews, and view suicide bombers as martyrs. I have no doubt there are some Palestinians, maybe even a significant number, who are willing to live in peace with Israel and just want to be left alone. Unfortunately, they aren't in charge, and they are practically invisible whenever it matters.

    "The Gaza Strip and the West Bank are in more or less the same situation - given some autonomy, but no sovereignty or opportunity to develop."

    They are different situations for the reason I mentioned before. The similarities are superficial only. Gaza and the West Bank were conquered hostile territory, and the Palestinians aren't second class Israeli citizens in any way comparable to South African blacks.

    "The comparison, as made by South African commentators, is about the occupation and the humanitarian situation in the Strip and the West Bank."

    The humanitarian situation is primarily the fault of the Palestinians. If they were not a threat to Israel, and not virulent supporters of terrorism, Israel could afford to be more tolerant.

    As it stands, a high level of Israeli restrictions on any Palestinian autonomy is necessary for the security of Israel. The Palestinians have done nothing to warrant greater autonomy, let alone complete independence. Israel has foolishly made the concessions it has because of international pressure, and a desire to try to solve an impossible problem that represents an endless threat.

    ReplyDelete
  6. They wouldn't cheer terrorist attacks on civilians, raise their children to hate Jews, and view suicide bombers as martyrs.

    What evidence do you have that they do? I can cite you polls showing and local journalists saying that they don't, at any rate not at a higher rate than Israelis hate them. They elected Hamas, but the choice was primarily based on the corruption of Fatah, not the political or religious agenda of Hamas.

    Condoning terrorism is something entirely different; countries under foreign attack, e.g. both Israel and Palestine, tend to do that. Expecting people in a country under occupation to have an epiphany and see it's all their fault is as realistic as expecting people in a country surrounded by enemies to stop feeling insecure and unilaterally end a military occupation of one of these enemies. That's why outside mediation is needed to resolve the conflict... which is a pity that the only relevant power that gives a damn is the US, which the Arabs just don't trust anymore.

    And for what it's worth, the polls show most Palestinians support continued terrorism, but a large and growing minority doesn't. Compared to the Israelis, who support military actions whose consequences include hundreds of civilian deaths nearly unanimously, the Palestinians are surprisingly pacifistic.

    Israel has foolishly made the concessions it has because of international pressure

    According to Thomas Friedman, Israel condones massacres, like the one in Sabra and Shatila, when there's no international pressure present. Ariel Sharon he compared to Assad, who murdered tens of thousands in Hama. One of the points made in From Beirut to Jerusalem is that Israel plays nice when and only when other people, primarily its Uncle Sam, are watching.

    Now, Friedman hasn't really talked to Palestinians in Palestine. His observations are mostly about the principals, including Arafat, and the Israelis in general; so he knows the pathologies of Israelis better than those of Palestinians. But for someone who's universally reviled on the left, he's made very astute criticisms of Israel's conducts, which pro-Israelis ignore at their own peril.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "What evidence do you have that they do? I can cite you polls showing and local journalists saying that they don't, at any rate not at a higher rate than Israelis hate them."

    Are you serious? There are sites that do nothing but track Arab hate toward Jews and others. Do the Israelis have tv shows for little children that portray Arabs as evil monsters? If the Israels had anything like the same hatred for the Palestinians, they'd all be dead. You might want to take a look at some of the links on memri.org.

    "Expecting people in a country under occupation to have an epiphany and see it's all their fault is as realistic"

    I don't expect that from them. They aren't outside observers.

    "That's why outside mediation is needed to resolve the conflict"

    I don't think the conflict can be realistically resolved. It can only be contained.

    "the only relevant power that gives a damn is the US, which the Arabs just don't trust anymore."

    Why should they? Israel is our ally, and the Palestinians are hostile supporters of terrorism. Why should they expect us to be evenhanded?

    " Compared to the Israelis, who support military actions whose consequences include hundreds of civilian deaths nearly unanimously, the Palestinians are surprisingly pacifistic."

    That ridiculous. Military actions that cause accidental civilian casualties are in no way comparable to terrorism. Civilians die in military operations -- especially when the enemy chooses to hide amongst civilian populations. Targeting them deliberately is an entirely different thing. Again, the relatively low level of civilian casualties caused by Israeli operations makes this clear. They could easily slaughter thousands if they chose to.

    "Israel condones massacres, like the one in Sabra and Shatila"

    Those were carried out by Lebanese militia allied with Israel, not by Israeli forces. Sometimes allies can't be controlled effectively.

    "Ariel Sharon he compared to Assad, who murdered tens of thousands in Hama."

    Yeah, that's a reasonable comparison. I don't remember Sharon ruling as a dictator and obliterating any rebel villages of his own people. Sharon is no saint, but he's no Assad either.

    Amazingly enough, I'm not a big fan of Tom Friedman. But I'm not arguing that Israel is perfect. It certainly acts ruthlessly at times, and has taken some actions which demonstrate little regard for possible collateral damage among Palestinians. But this situation isn't one of those times. They are using precision weapons and trying to target Hamas. There's just no way to kill less civilians. If they go in on the ground, they will still end up killing significant numbers of civilians.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There are sites that do nothing but track Arab hate toward Jews and others.

    No, there are sites that post links to outrage stories. That's not the same thing; given enough research, you can find enough outrage stories to make it look as if white people are being oppressed in the US. I don't accept that Dhimmi Watch and Islam Watch are any better than vdare, or, more recently, the anti-Indian site you linked to a few days ago.

    Military actions that cause accidental civilian casualties are in no way comparable to terrorism. Civilians die in military operations -- especially when the enemy chooses to hide amongst civilian populations.

    Maybe we just see things differently, but to me, consequences of recurrent actions equal intentions. Israel knows that even its most targeted operations kill an order of magnitude more civilians than Hamas does, so it's reasonable to hold it responsible.

    If you think the military sphere is too remote here, then think about economics. Nobody wants mass starvation, or deep recession. And yet, we have no problem passing judgment on certain regimes and certain politicians that they're anti-growth and anti-development. Someone who reduces economic output through malpractice, like Mugabe, can cause as much mayhem as someone who reduces it deliberately, like Israel in Palestine.

    I don't remember Sharon ruling as a dictator and obliterating any rebel villages of his own people. Sharon is no saint, but he's no Assad either.

    The comparison wasn't there. Friedman argues that Sharon and Assad had roughly the same respect for human life, but Sharon was hemmed by democratic checks and balances. In Lebanon, where Sharon was no longer so restricted, Israel did promote massacres. Friedman explains how the Israeli army allowed the Sabra and Shatila massacres to occur through willful negligence. Everyone with a pair of binoculars could see what was happening in the refugee camps, but the IDF troops refused to look; everyone could hear what was going on, but the IDF did nothing.

    I don't really like Friedman either, and I think his latter-day globalization boosterism is revolting, but there's no question he knows far more about the I/P issue than anyone else in the American media, and I'll take his reporting any day over that of a pundit who's never set foot in the Middle East outside the Tel Aviv waterfront.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "No, there are sites that post links to outrage stories."

    That doesn't make the stories invalid. There are inumerable examples of extreme Palestinian hatred toward Jews. Their actions in who they choose for leaders, and how they behave whenever a terrorist attack occurs, speak a lot louder than any suspect answers in a poll.

    " Israel knows that even its most targeted operations kill an order of magnitude more civilians than Hamas does, so it's reasonable to hold it responsible."

    Not when they have no other options aside from doing nothing. Any military retaliation is going to cause civilian casualties. Those casualties are the result of Hamas actions. If Hamas was not rocketing Israel, Palestinians would not be dying from Israeli airstrikes. Hamas does not have to launch rockets at Israel. It serves no purpose other than to provoke retaliation. Israel has to defend itself.

    "Someone who reduces economic output through malpractice, like Mugabe, can cause as much mayhem as someone who reduces it deliberately, like Israel in Palestine."

    Again, those are very different situations. Israel has excellent, well-justified reasons for placing restrictions on the Palestinians. Mugabe is just a power-crazed lunatic.

    "but the IDF troops refused to look; everyone could hear what was going on, but the IDF did nothing."

    That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that they made a realistic calculation that provoking conflict with their allies during the middle of a war wasn't worth it. That kind of harsh reasoning happens all the time during war.

    "but there's no question he knows far more about the I/P issue than anyone else in the American media"

    Depth of knowledge on the details is not the same thing as analytical ability.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That doesn't make the stories invalid. There are inumerable examples of extreme Palestinian hatred toward Jews.

    On some highways in Israel, there's hardly a kilometer without graffiti saying "Kahane was right."

    Given enough work, you can always find anecdotes to support an assertion. That's the point of appealing to polls, or the testimony of long-time correspondents.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There are certainly Israeli extremists who hate Palestinians. But that hatred isn't part of the education system, supported by the government, and fanned by mainstream religious authorities -- as is Palestinian hatred of Jews.

    ReplyDelete