Following a friend’s Facebook link I came across this New Yorker blog post by George Packer on the IDF Gaza ‘Aid’ Convoy Debacle ‘Israel Takes the Bait‘. I can’t fault the opening line which is spot on: ‘The Israeli raid on a flotilla bound for Gaza was worse than a crime, it was a blunder.’ Packer goes on to claim that ‘Sunday night’s incident showed again that the most powerful force in international relations today is neither standing armies nor diplomatic councils, but public opinion as shaped by media.’ There are few people more inclined to think that this is true than me having written a fair bit on this issue (see 100 Years of COIN: What new have we learned?); as it happens, however, I think this is a bit of a stretch–the most powerful force in the world? It does seem to be important with respect to Israel, to an extent, but how about Darfur, or Tibet, or the Kurds (one might ask the Turks who are in high dudgeon over the weekend’s events)?
Anyway, I digress, whether or not it is the most important force I certainly do think it is very important. But why? And how? For me, one of the most arresting passages in Rupert Smith’s book The Utility of Force is where he writes,
We are conducting operations now as though we are on a stage, in an amphitheatre or Roman arena. There are two or more sets of players—both with a producer, the commander, each of whom has his own idea of the script. On the ground, in the actual theatre, they are all on the stage and mixed up with people trying to get to their seats, the stage hands, the ticket collectors and the ice-cream vendors. At the same time they are being viewed by a partial and factional audience, comfortably seated, its attention focused on that part of the auditorium is noisiest, watching the events by peering down the drinking straws of their soft-drink packs – for that is the extent of the vision of a camera (Smith, 2006: 284–5).
He then goes on to compare the role of the theatre commander to that of a theatre or film producer. As compelling as I found this metaphor I also found it a little awkward to understand and wished that Smith had illustrated it with more specific examples. We need wait no longer. Israel’s naval commandos have served up what might be a textbook example. Back to Smith for a sec:
The media and its role must also be an integral part of planning–if only because it will pitch up in any event, and tell a story, so it is best to consider the story and the role of the media from the start. On the basis of this understanding I see the media as being to a large extent the source of the context in which the acts in the theatre are played out: they do not make the facts, but it is they who express and display them. In the theatre of war those on the stage and watching in the stands judge actions in the theatre within this context, and it is up to the planners to ensure the audience via the media always remembers there are at least tow producers and companies on the stage–not one mixed up large one. That is why establishing the context of the event and getting the story right from the start is so important. To act effectively one is trying to gain a position where the majority of the audience and the people on the stage are following your script in the context, and not that of the opponent. (391)
When the IDF’s naval commandos rappelled on to the decks of those ships did they think that they were conducting something more than a tricky tactical exercise in boarding? Did their commander understand that first and foremost what they were doing was descending on to the stage of a movie set starring them with worldwide release? It doesn’t seem so to me. But the other side was for sure. They were conducting theatre; the Israelis were not and they’re paying the price for making that mistake
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }
Without going to read the post in the New Yorker blog–I know my limitations and make it a habit to avoid the New Yorker in any of its forms, I assume this statement “Sunday night’s incident showed again that the most powerful force in international relations today is neither standing armies nor diplomatic councils, but public opinion as shaped by media.’ ” refers to the US.
I think this is not only extravagant as you suggest but also outdated. Certainly in the year and a half of our current masters and their apparent lack of skill in international affairs aggravated by a “blame America first” default position, I think the US cannot claim such a vaunted position now.
they do not make the facts, but it is they who express and display them
I agree that the Media do not make the facts, but there is a lot more to the “expression and display” of the facts than purely the noble pursuit of seeking and reporting the Truth… to the extent that I believe that the Media have abandoned Truth some time ago, and now simply move to manipulate their reports to form or influence public opinion via “flavour of the day”, and to prescribe values. Call it an “election by TV remote”, if you like.
In the light of this, if not Theatre of the Absurd, then perhaps “good TV” is more like a Wagnerian Opera – the actors dying in droves to the accompaniment of a Media orchestra under the baton of a billionaire conductor, for the entertainment of a detached audience, scrutinizing it all with the aloofness of a laboratory assistant and the attention span of a fruit fly.
Excellent observations. I would go even further (naturally I suppose). I believe that much of the “media” (I realize we are grossly generalizing here and I include not only the reporters in the field, but perhaps in this era of “commoditized news,” others in the food chain who influence if not wholly control what is then passed on to the unsuspecting or naively trusting public) is no longer comprised of “journalists” in the sense of neutral observers of events who try to report such events as accurately and without spin as possible. Instead, most information is spun, distorted and increasingly it seems (according to a colleague in our journalism school) fabricated to fit some ideological and/or “marketing” template.
Reference the “IDF Gaza ‘Aid’ Convoy Debacle,” here is an interesting comment from, of all places, Aviation Week: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a3c75aa03-b37b-48b6-986e-9c0e4c51430c
Paint-ball guns? The initial IDF fast-ropers were only armed with paint-ball guns? On the face of it, this doesn’t seem to support the belief that IDF came kill. Facts are still being uncovered and I am sure more info will follow.
Sadly, the media can’t be trusted to report facts without spin. Commentary, opine away, but when reporting, “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts” (said in my best Sgt Joe Friday voice).
“One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the coporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this.” -Edward R. Murrow (October 1958)
“Did their commander understand that first and foremost what they were doing was descending on to the stage of a movie set starring them with worldwide release?”
The fact that they were sent into action with paintball guns is a bit hard to explain if the answer to the question is “no”. Sometimes, being too conscious of the danger of a bad PR outcome can lead to a catastrophic PR outcome.
I don’t think there was ever any doubt that both sides were well aware that they were players in a media event. The problem we all have, and it takes a lot of effort to compensate for, is our perception of ‘reality’ is shaped by the media environment in which we live, or more accurately choose to live.
If you and all around you get their information from the JPost you will have had a different view of how this is going to play than someone living on a diet of Al Jazeera’s Arabic service. In both cases an extreme reaction from the die-hards is a given, the problem is predicting how the great hump of uncommitteds will react. Secondarily which group of news swallowers do you care about, for Israel probably US public opinion is all that really counts, without movement here the US government can not stop using its SC veto or cut aid. The other players are primarily targeting the same audience but also have their eyes on additional targets. The other players are well meaning Western Liberals, trying to right injustices in Gaza, for whom Governments outside the US and Israel are the target. The primarily Muslim supporters of the Palestinian cause would very much like to see a bit more vocal opposition from the populations of those undemocratic countries whose rulers are generally a lot more sympathetic to US FP than their populaces (AKA – in Western Media speak – as ‘Moderate Arab States’). It would appear that the last group have had some joy as Egypt has opened the Rafah crossing, presumably to preempt domestic reaction. As they are heavily focused on the succession at present, and fearful of Hamas/MB links, I suspect they will close it as soon as they think they can get away with it.
It has been interesting to watch the comments sections of various online media source, and the editorials. The numbers falling on the pro Israeli side are not as overwhelmingly dominant in the US media as they were a decade ago but there is little sign that the general tenor of the broader US MSM has shifted anywhere near the point a mythical ‘global average citizen’ might view as neutral.
Given that Israel is supported heavily by the US (Military aid, support on the hill, lobbyists in Washington, in the UN etc) I suspect Israel knew it might cop some flack but didnt care enough to change the game plan.
They went into Gaza and did a lot worse and showed no remorse there, they have blockaded Gaza there and done lots of other things in the past and shown no remorse , its unlikely they will over this.
I understand their perceptions (as almost every Israeli I have met has told me) that they are surrounded and under attack and must do what they do in these times as its a time of war etc so its unlikely that some international opinion is going to make them change their minds.
Israel now reminds me of Rhodesia, paranoid, armed and dangerous, beligerant and totaly unwilling to change their course but facing the inevitable situation that sooner or later something has to give and hoping for a miracle. Rhodesia failed because it just wasnt willing to change to suit the reality of what surrounded it, can Israel?
Rhodesia was a total pariah state at least the US supports Israel so they are not totaly out in the cold.
While I think that what they have did and have done is disgusting, unpleasnt and wrong, I understand their motivations and in a week or so the Media will move onto some other flavor of the moment things to sell news by an no one outside those directly affected will care much or remember.
When you consider yourself in a fight for your life you dont care much for PR.
If on the other hand another nation is actually going to do something about this (what I leave up to others to decide) then perhapes Israel might change its mind.
As a point of clarification: Whenever I hear “. . .Israel is supported heavily by the US (Military aid, support on the hill, lobbyists in Washington, in the UN etc). . .”, I must also point out that Egypt is the second largest recipient of FMF. Whereas Israel receives approximately $3B a year in FMF, Egypt received approximately $2B annually. Egypt has American tanks (M-1′s) and jets (F-16′s), as well as other modern military weapons and equipment, and receives all sorts of training and logistics support. Saudi as well (through FMS with no FMF). The fact that Egypt today receives so much FMF funding is testament to their support on the Hill and lobbyists in DC.
Just to be clear.
No, that fact is related to the Camp David Accords. The only way to get a modicum of peace was to buy both sides off.
Initially.
Today they retain their FMF due to the pol-mil balance in the region.
Egypt, like the Israeli’s, must remain engaged otherwise their FMF would have ended a long time ago.
Egypt is not as polished as the Israeli’s but they are effective in DC.
In the interest of clarity Egypt’s population is about 10 times Israel’s which makes the US aid per Israeli about the same an average Gazan’s total annual income.
Just numbers.
I can’t see how Isreal is paranoid, they do have enemies who want to do them harm.
While this may be your view: “They went into Gaza and did a lot worse and showed no remorse there, they have blockaded Gaza there and done lots of other things in the past and shown no remorse.” I wonder if it bears up under the facts to the extent you describe it.
@Barton
In making reference to Rhodesia I was refering to that particular paranoia that a regime can develop when it feels that all (or almost all) are enemies. Israel does have enemies but its not surrounded by hostiles as it may once have been, it has cross border tarde and tourism with its neighbors and is not as isolated as its fortress mentality might suggest.
@Cincinattus Jr.
Given that Israel commonly defines its military actions as “defensive” or “preventative” and that the calculations made in relation to its actions come from its “defensive/preventative” viewpoint I wouldnt expect them to aplogise or show remorse. They undoubtably see their actions as just and right.
They view their actions in the same manner any state which behaves as such does (be it right or wrong). Japan didnt apologise after Pearl Harbour, there were no apologies after 911, why should Israel apologise for its actions?
I do consider that a blockade around Gaza, building a security wall, allowing land appropraitions and seizures, the security measures shown towards individuals (mostly Palestinians) who are considered a threat and the general Israeli posture to be facts which would bear up to scrutiny and be bourne out.
I can understand why they might justify these things but I dont agree with them, less for moral reasons and more because they have proven to do little to improve its security in the long term and help contribute to the very problems they face. Their posture indicates a reactionary stance to any threat assessment and such is not a preferable option to a small or medium power in the geographical position that Israel is in. The US might be able to afford such a stance (given the power and geographical factors) but Israel cannot.
Not meant to be blunt or rude, but there is no comparison between Israel’s action and what the cloven hoofed animals on 9/11 did. Or Japan. Nor is there any comparison between 9/11 and Japan, as well.
I understand your point, however.
I agree with Gunrunner in this regard. It is interesting and revealing in this forum as well as others I frequent to see the apparent anti-Israel animus that underlies much of the discussion and at times distorts or diverts it unfortunately. In this regard, let me say that I am no fawning knee-jerk supporter of Israel (I still await a transparent inquiry into its attack on the USS Liberty and am very aware that there are traitorous spies in US prisons who have done the bidding of Israel–Pollard for example). With that said, however, I think there are those, even in the academy ( ;-) ), who allow their biases to color their perspectives, if even subconsciously.
With respect, I would cite for example the characterization of Hezbollah (dare I say it) terrorists even metaphorically as a “flea” that suggests to me it is very hard to have a wholly rational discussion of something so inherently volatile as Israel’s security. Using this frame of reference, the same I suppose could be said of the 9/11 attackers in that given their numbers etc. relative to the vastness of the US, they were also the proverbial gnat to the US elephant. given the virtual cataclysmic results of that “gnat’s” bite, however, I think to use such terms at all in these discussions suggests the problem in keeping them “real” as the current (I think) street jargon so aptly puts it.
Surely not in the academy, C Jr?! I think you’re talking to the wrong academicians…
Flea, as in ‘War of the Flea’, incidentally. Meanwhile, if you’re concerned about my own take on this, why not check out a programme some friends and I made for that bastion of Israel-hating pinko lefties, the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5209466.stm
Once again – it’s good to be aware of one’s own biases when imputing something about others.
Thanks for that as always-I am always open to broader perspectives even if I may not ultimately agree.
And as to your final point (dig?), in case there is any doubt, subject to the frailties of this mortal coil, I (in distinction to at least some I have encountered in the vaunted Academy–harrumph–the one beyond the hallowed and unassailable halls of KOW of course) really do continually try to perform “system checks” (see how contemporary I can be?) on my own motives, biases, blinders (I am American of course and a Marine besides) and other hindrances to true enlightenment. ;-)
With respect, C Jr, while you may try to “system check” your own biases etc., do you succeed? Would you say there are any similarities at all between the SS Exodus and the flotilla boarded by the IDF? And are there any differences?
Thanks for that as always-I am always open to broader perspectives even if I may not ultimately agree. And in case there is any doubt, subject to the frailties of this mortal coil, that I (in distinction to at least some I have encountered in the vaunted Academy–harrumph–the one beyond the hallowed and unassailable halls of KOW of course) continually try to perform “system checks” (see how contemporary I can be?) on my own motives, biases, blinders (I am American of course and a Marine besides) and other hindrances to true enlightenment. ;-)
In all humility I think I probably succeed about as often as others who take on the exercise in good faith and with the knowledge of human imperfection–would that more take on such a practice. Speaking of human limitations, I am grading papers as we speak to satisfy my fire-breathing dean and anxious students so I will have to get back to you on your question. In the meantime there is this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1283021/Israel-Did-activists-wanted–confrontation.html
And this:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/analysis-israel-has-forgotten-the-lessons-of-the-exodus-1.293391
Still immersed in the drudge of grading but as I reflected on your reguest for “differences,” and readily acknowledging I am not conversant on all the details of the 1947 incident, much less the larger political situation, it seems to me one salient difference may be that in the earlier case the “cargo” was human (so far as I am aware) whereas in the more recent situation it was primarily materiel, ostensibly humanitarian. Given the continuing security problems for Israel from clearly non-humanitarian materiel finding its way into Gaza, coupled with the very questionable (I am being kind here) bona fides of at least the core group of organizers of this “flotilla,” I do think that is such a “difference.”
This exchange between 2 international legal scholars (I know, I know, both are American) is also instructive about the “uncertain waters” (sorry) we are navigating when trying to decide who the protagonists and antagonists are in this piece.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june10/gaza2_06-02.html
“It is interesting and revealing in this forum as well as others I frequent to see the apparent anti-Israel animus that underlies much of the discussion and at times distorts or diverts it unfortunately. ”
Everyone has bias, but animus?
You make it sound like everyone is hating on Israel and not passing opinion on anyone else.
But you may have a point, I do think there is some bias here and maybe even some animus but I have seen it directed towards all sorts, the media, politicians, the military, civillians, Israel, North Korea, the US and many many others.
So politely and respectfully whats your point?
An excellent post, as usual DB.
What you say about theatrics made me look at something about this case in a different light, which is always exciting (to me, at any rate). Bear with me for an extended commentary here.
Theatre is art. Why? Because it requires an artist to make decisions about what is in and what is out. It is a narrative, a constructed story, not some transcript of ‘what actually happened’. This is the difference between ‘reality TV’ and CCTV footage, for example. By imputing some judgement, we alter the transcript, transforming it into art. The lines, the actors, the setting, the plot: all chosen by the artist.
In line with the Aristotelian rules of drama, perfect theatre should respect the three unities: time, place, and action. In a perfect play, the action should be limited to the duration of a single day (unity of time). Likwise, the action should be limited to one general locality (unity of place). Finally, the action should be restricted to a single set of incidents which are related as cause and effect (unity of action). The closer to the ideal, the more perfect the theatre is, according to Aristotle.
In this case, we come close to the ideal IF and ONLY IF we look down Rupert Smith’s drinking-straw. And for the most part, the public seems to be doing so, whether it is on Fox, BBC, or Al-Jazeera. We are happy to view–and perhaps contest–the theatre as it is presented. What happened at this time, in this location? How were the actions (attack and defence, say) related?
We swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Just as the Director wants us to. Not to say we can’t or don’t see both sides (or some see one side and others see another side) but we stick to the narrative as presented.
But what if we rupture the unity and ask other questions?
Don’t ask ‘what did the activists do?’, or ‘was the force justified?’ or ‘did the commandos react appropriately?’, but rather:
“Why was a ship boarded in international waters?”
“Why was there a perceived need to bring aid to Gaza?”
“Is it moral to blockade a group of people?”
These ‘other’ questions (and the list is far from exhaustive) are outside the script, off-stage, but to me far more relevant.
The play is a red herring. The theatre is meant to be a distraction, to absorb the audience. As Althusser noted in 1962:
“we can see that the play itself is the spectator’s consciousness – for the essential reason that the spectator has no other consciousness than the content which unites him to the play in advance, and the development of this content in the play itself.”
Staying with classic theatre, it occurs to me – good theatre is also a parable. A moral tale. It is meant to evoke emotion – not on the level of the play itself (though that guarantees future ticket sales) – but as part of that consciousness that Althusser notes.
Consider Max Frisch Biedermann und die Brandstifter, a metaphor for pre-war Germany – the audience experience a sense of increasing dread as the play unfolds against a backdrop of the inevitable. We know what is going to happen next… or to coin a phrase, even the iceberg shouted: “ICEBERG”!
The complexity enters the equation when we are presented with a compound metaphor, as we are here. We use theatre, itself an analogy, as analogous to military operations – and then, as above – chuck in a Titanic analogy to clarify.
Back to Frisch and Herr Biedermann… perhaps it would’ve been nice if Frisch had intervened, created a Deus ex Machina that would somehow evict the arsonists from his attic, and restore the poor Biedermann’s moral defences. But whilst good for Biedermann, it would not be good theatre. It is not “what had happened”, and how interesting would it be to watch Biedermann watching TV anyway? Where is the moral tale in that? So, as Biedermann (like Prometheus) is bound to his Fate and inexorably marches towards it, so too the audience (like Cassandra) are bound by Fate, having foreknowledge, but unable to affect the outcome.
Sounds like an average night of Sky News then…
Even the CCTV footage has its own directorial take/agenda. Where do I site the camera? If I am a capitalist I may be trying to catch/deter thieves. I might point it at the pub door way but am I law enforcement catching hooligans or am I interested in civil liberties and police brutality? When I view the footage what do I use and what goes on the cutting room floor?
FB, I like your comment.
Yes to the media being important in shaping understandings of war, but yes too to the idea that they suck attention inexorably to the tactical. Israel’s problem is strategic – how to get durable security. Assassinations, incursions into Gaza, and raids on approaching ‘peace’ protestors garner headlines and some measure of opprobrium – but the news cycle spins on: yesterday a shooting in Cumbria, today, who knows what. By the end of the week, it’s stale.
Did the disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 2006 really change the strategic balance for Israel? Who won that one? Israel is still standing, still nibbled by a Hezbollah shaped flea. What’s left from all these exciting tactical events is a public sense of injustice at the state of Gaza (and one that spreads wider than the weird hard-left-Islamist alliance who actually turn out for the protests) and a gradual erosion of Israel’s reputation.
That’s the strategic dilemma, the theatre of commando raids and the like just periodically draws attention to it – which is why Hamas and friends provoke it. So, while I like Smith’s analogy, and agree with him that wars are mediated events, perhaps its fair to see this one as Les Miserables: it’ll run and run.
I used the term “animus” quite purposefully but to save all of us from some boring etymological discussion I will move to your polite and respectful question. My “point” such as it is–I actually considered it more an observation as I tried to say in my original post but again I digress–is merely that in my experience in recent years in discussing use of force and other security-related subjects involving Israel, I have perceived a strand of apparent prejudice against that nation. This in turn seems to predispose some to have a “default” position of criticism (either in substance or tone or both) against that nation that often seems disproportionate to the particular delict (real or alleged) involved.
There are “mere” personal impressions mind you but it might be interesting to see if there are correlations to similar apparent reactions against other nations, faiths and the like.
Speaking boldly on behalf of the entire non-US world, it seems to me that there is a large prejudice/bias from Americans in favour of literally any action taken by the Israeli state. This leads to two specific points:
1. The anti-Israel bias that you see is where you approve of actions that many others disapprove of; it’s at least possible that the action is in some objective way bad (yes, I know), and your perceiving it as Ok is the result of your pro-Israel bias.
2. I wonder whether that pro-Israel bias (assuming it exists) is the cause of casual characterisations of Arabs / Muslims (often conflated) as “cloven-hoofed”, “evil” – or the effect.
Here’s an interesting thought-experiment, to identify ethnic-based prejudice: imagine an Arab Muslim state was maintaining a small strip of land where 1 million Jews were living. Those Jews are blockaded since they elected a government the Arabs didn’t like, in an attempt to starve them into submission. Frequent raids kill not only terrorists, but women and children. Basically, swap the group identities of the Arab/Muslims and the Jew/Jews, and see how you feel about the actions now.
Ed:
Your thought experiment will not identify anything, since it is constructed around the assumption that any nation state will relate to all other nation states on an equal basis. This is not true in general, and specifically in relation to the USA and Israel. They are allies, so bias is predictable – not due to ethnicity, but founded on foreign policy.
May I also point out that in your thought experiment description of the situation as it is reversed, there is not a single reference to reciprocity. For instance, the Jews of your “small strip of land” did not fire in excess of 1,700 Qassam rockets into their neighbour’s territory in 2008 alone. Yet, by description they are blockaded, starved and raided. Would it would be fair to comment that your thought experiment description also shows bias – albeit in the opposite direction?
I can explain and understand the reasons for the Americans’ bias (as stated above), but yours remain a mystery to me.
Generally well stated. My only quibble would be to again point out that not ALL Americans (as you said, perhaps without so intending, “… Americans’ bias … “) are “biased” in favor of Israel and even where there is “bias,” as you rightly say, this can take many forms and operate at many levels such that even for a “biased” American, it may not be so for all purposes and degrees in terms of Israeli policies, practices and actions. Without laboring my original point, my reference to “animus” was primarily in the context of those who in many instances allow such “feelings” to override their rational analysis of the issue at hand (e.g., the “knee jerk” variety).
I realize it is largely a function of this mode of discourse to speak in general terms for the sake of space more than argument.
Thank you… and your quibble is a fair comment. Please accept my own bias regarding the discussion as an inaccurate aggregation, but an essential constituent of my argument.
Quintin,
You say: ‘May I also point out that in your thought experiment description of the situation as it is reversed, there is not a single reference to reciprocity. For instance, the Jews of your “small strip of land” did not fire in excess of 1,700 Qassam rockets into their neighbour’s territory in 2008 alone.’
However, I originally said: “Basically, swap the group identities of the Arab/Muslims and the Jew/Jews, and see how you feel about the actions now.” While I didn’t spell out every one of the atrocities carried out by either side (yes, both sides have committed atrocities), the point is to just swap “Israeli” for “Palestinian” and see how it sits. What are your thoughts?
Now, to specifically address your point concerning reciprocity: you seem to be stating that the firing of the Qassam rockets justifies the blockade. That’s collective punishment, isn’t it? I recognise that I’m not an eminent academic, and that I’ve failed to understand the context, so I hope you can help me out.
I will let Quintin and others perhaps weigh in but I think your question about collective punishment and the point I assume you want to make by posing it rhetorically, again underscores the point I previously made that “reasonable” (and perhaps more to the point many unreasonable) people disagree as to many of the premises underlying the competing assertions of various norms of otherwise applicable international law.
Indeed, your specific question (and a reading of the linked summary) demonstrates this problem. It is by no means clear that the “blockade” is “lawful” or not, as forcefully reflected in the various debates now in the news due to the recent incident and indeed ever since the Israelis commenced its efforts to stem the flow of munitions and terrorists into Gaza. Even as to this issue there is much debate as to the “legality” of the spectrum of Israel’s specific actions under this policy as well as much obfuscation as to the facts. For example, relatively little has been said as far as I have seen in the recent dust-up as to the extent that Israel allows non-military materiel through the various permitted access points into Gaza, which is very relevant to any assessment as to whether Israel is conducting a “lawful” blockade in the first place.
Just to be clear as to my own biases. Apparently I’m a bleeding-heart wimp-liberal, but here are my views:
1. The Israeli strategy for its occupied territories is counter-productive, and probably unsustainable. Counter-insurgency as terrorist recruiting campaign: the Fallujah/Pakistan/Gaza/West Bank model?
2. I think Goldstone’s findings on Operation Cast Lead are factually as good as they can be, and legally correct.
3. I think that the Gaza blockade is morally and legally wrong, and would feel exactly the same if the group’s identities were reversed, since my reaction is to how people are treating people, regardless of the labels on them. Told you I was a wimp-liberal.
Ed:
Now, to specifically address your point concerning reciprocity: you seem to be stating that the firing of the Qassam rockets justifies the blockade.
I stated nothing of the sort. I seek to point out that your thought experiment was rather one-sided, and (in my opinion) constructed in a manner to create a particular impression – something that you dispute, and it is within the context of your dispute that you make that observation.
However, staying with your observation, the following:
Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza since 2006. Gaza forms part of a semi-autonomous state since the Oslo Accords of 1993. Israel is a sovereign state since 1948. These two international entities are at war – 1,750 rockets in 2008 alone, and frequent retaliatory incursions cannot be described else wise.
If we accept the above, and equally accept that any region that enjoys a degree of autonomy regarding self-defence also has the moral right and political imperative to assure the continuation of autonomy, then we have to accept that:
a. Israel is compelled to protect its citizens (being the foundation of its autonomy) from hostile actions – whatever the nature of that may be, in a manner that is proportionate and relevant.
b. Hamas is compelled to protect the citizens of Gaza (being the foundation of its autonomy) from hostile actions – whatever the nature of that may be, in a manner that is proportionate and relevant.
Nice and fair… both sides have the same rights. So lets pause to reflect on this:
a. If Israel blockade Gaza to prevent the accumulation of the means to manufacture, transport or store Qassam rockets, as part of the pursuit of the political imperative, then this action is both proportionate, relevant and not unlike the actions performed by maritime nations in times of war since the Dawn of Time.
b. If Hamas accumulate and launch Qassam rockets at Israel as part of the pursuit of the political imperative, then I personally find myself at the edge of reason since I fail to grasp how the promotion of actions that will result in retaliatory incursions and blockades could serve that purpose. These are offensive (attacking) weapons being used in an attacking manner.
As it may… my purpose here is not to judge, but to illustrate as I attempted above: if the primary goal of a proportionate action is to protect a population against a particular application of means of coercion, then it is a valid action. If there are side effects, ancillary outcomes, or unexpected results, that does not detract from the validity of the action. This is based on the principle of self-defence, and tested as follows: if all of my attempted actions are proven to prevent serious injury or death to myself or a third party, and some or all of these actions happened to result in the death of the attacker, I am considered to have acted in self-defence.
Is the blockade a valid war-time action directed at self-defence? I believe so. Is the pursuit of a low-intensity preventative strategy preferable to a high-intensity removal strategy? I believe that too. Is there another way of preventing the manufacture of Qassam rockets (bearing in mind that these are manufactured from household products)? I cannot think of any, but will appreciate it if viable alternatives could be pointed out. What does Hamas have to do to get the blockade lifted? I would suggest that (like their renunciation of suicide bombers in April 2005 – remember those?), Hamas should perhaps consider renunciation of the rocket attacks, cease these altogether, declare themselves willing to return the negotiations, and plough that significant resources required by Qassam manufacturing into the improvement of the lot of their constituents. A double-win, and a strategic move that Israel will find near impossible to counter with a belligerent stance. Nobel Peace Prizes for everyone.
Is the blockade also collective punishment? The above arguments and beliefs aside, my personal operationalisation of Collective Punishment as an abstract, (in the absence of a full definition) is based on the following observations:
a. It is a reprisal by its nature.
b. It is disproportionate in its effect.
c. No attempt is made to direct the punitive actions towards the original actors (the action that evoked the reprisal), and the selection of the target of Collective Punishment has little or no bearing on the need to retaliate.
d. The selection of the target is in fact in-directed at the original actors.
A classic example, (but by no means the only): “For every one of my soldiers killed by partisans, I will murder 50 randomly selected villagers from the nearby settlements. My motives for doing so, are: the villagers will force the partisans to leave, and the partisans will curb their enthusiasm in fear of alienating the villagers.”
These observations are based on aspects of article 33 of the IV Protocol itself, as well as the perceived intention of the drafters thereof. One could argue that the above are too restrictive (as always), but the risk also exists that, on the opposite of the spectrum, all defensive measures could end up being described as Collective Punishment. And such is the nature of this Discipline: nothing is quite black or white when you deal with humans. But as I use the term, the blockade would not meet all of the requirements.
In summary – I am of the opinion that the blockade is not a form of Collective Punishment, but a legitimate war-time measure with the primary goal of protecting Israeli citizens in a proportionate and relevant manner. I am equally of the opinion that we are at present so far from the original topic that I’ll need a 6 figure grid reference (or a signal flare) to return to the main thread.
And with that… and until such time when a more appropriate topic for further discussion presents itself, I’m history.
Quintin,
That’s an excellent discussion of the issues. Just for the avoidance of doubt, I have no love for Hamas, nor for their strategy. If all three sides would simply implement the Geneva Accord, I think that the whole situation would be resolved for good. It is regrettable, to say the least, that none of the actors in this ongoing clusterlove have the moral courage to grasp the nettle.
I would pick one nit, which is where you said: “if the primary goal of a proportionate action is to protect a population against a particular application of means of coercion, then it is a valid action.” That’s a tautology, since if the action is proportionate, it is by definition valid, and vice versa. As usual with any application of laws and definitions to reality, it all comes down to the facts, which in this situation are greatly subject to interpretation. No easy answers to be had here, and little chance of anyone being held to account for their atrocities in any case. Let the clusterlove continue, recruiting ever more jihad-obsessed nutters.
You managed to re-state what I have been (trying) to emphasize in my several recent posts: “As usual with any application of laws and definitions to reality, it all comes down to the facts, which in this situation are greatly subject to interpretation. ”
When this is then superimposed onto the seemingly never-ending (and even increasing in some quarters) biases that I also discussed that take every opportunity to skew the debate toward one irreconcilable pole to the other, it is no wonder “answers” are hard to find.
As a stark example of this and also a convenient riposte to Quentin’s “strawman” that Americans are (“all”) biased toward Israel take a look at this US website’s coverage of one aspect of the recent incident and then note that it also purports to be dedicated to US military veterans, a group that in general is not known to be especially populated by “wimpy-liberals” to use Ed’s phrase. The virulence of the author (and the same fellow who runs the website) is yet another reminder of how difficult these issues are.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/06/04/gordon-duff-what-israels-execution-of-an-american-teen-means/
Ed:
your reply frames nicely the intractable nature of the matter. As to your “test” for prejudice I appreciate your kind effort to simplify things for me and I assume others who need such help in our meager understanding of these complex matters. I think your preceding paragraphs were sufficient for me to grasp,albeit only insofar as my cretnous abilities allow, the nature of the prejudice to which you refer.
C Jr, so sorry if you feel your intelligence has been insulted. I note that you didn’t answer the implied question: do you think it’s right to refer to people as “cloven-hoofed”? And if the group identities were reversed, would the actions be acceptable?
“. . .do you think it’s right to refer to people as “cloven-hoofed”?”
The remark was not directed at “people.” It was clearly directed at the grossly cowardly, evil and sub-human (better?) that used hundreds of innocent people to murder thousands of innocent people, with the aim of terrorizing millions of innocent people. “Cloven-hoofed” is about as mild as I can put it.
Got any comments on the King David Hotel event?
Nope.
I was commenting on a specific 9/11 comparison, therefore, I would rather not play the back-and-forth “Well. . .what about so-and-so?”
Apologies-I was using my Iphone in my last response. I frankly (and as I have so stated repeatedly in other threads) do not think any such pejorative name-calling is appropriate or helpful in that or any other context. That you would even think I would approve of such things also suggests the extent of the divide that is apparent to me over anything having to do with Israel.
Cheers.
Thanks for answering one of the questions. The other question remains unanswered: if the group identities were reversed, would the actions be acceptable?
I had no idea how to approach this beforenow Im locked and lodead.
Ed:
with repect, I think my responses were sufficient for both quetions. As I have also consistently stated here and elsewhere, the rule of law and the principles and values embodied therein apply without regard to the distinctions you are making. The difficulty is, however, that there is disagreement (exacerbated by the polemic and biased viewpoint of many) as to what the “law” is and how it should be applied and enforced in a given case or situation. It is this aspect to which my observations have been directed.