Saturday, 9 August 2014

Liberal Apologetics for Israel in the Huffington Post

As the daily death toll rises in the Gaza Strip, the liberal apologists for the crimes of the state of Israel on appear to be thinner ground. The scale of the tragedy of Operation Protective Edge looks set to not only exceed, but dwarf that of the last Israeli massacre of Operation Cast Lead, in which 1,400 Palestinians, including 300 children were killed, and some 5,300 injured – the majority of which were civilians. Those seeking to justify Israeli crimes in these instances usually fall back on the nonetheless benign intentions of the Israeli state, generally found in the expression of abstract principles about democracy. In doing so, they manage to perform impressive feats of intellectual acrobatics to ignore what representatives of the Israeli state actually say about their own intentions and goals.

I’ve already mentioned that IDF commanders have referred to Operation Protective Edge as a standard “shock and awe” tactic designed in part to erode Hamas' support and weaken Palestinian morale, and this is something which was very much at play in Operation Cast Lead, too. In Cast Lead, IDF soldiers were given specific instructions as to how much regard for the right to life of Palestinians the average soldier was to have in conducting warfare in a built-up occupied territory [emphasis added]:
“You don’t see a terrorist there [in the house]? Fire at the window. It was real urban
warfare. This is the difference between urban warfare and a limited confrontation. In
urban warfare, anyone is your enemy. No innocents. It was simply urban warfare in
every way. . . . They kept repeating to us that this is war and in war opening fire is not restricted. . . . our brigade commander at least once . . . went so far as to say this was war and in war as in war, no consideration of civilians was to be taken. You shoot anyone you see.”

That’s testimony from Breaking the Silence – an NGO which describes itself as “an organization of veteran combatants who have served in the Israeli military since the start of the Second Intifada and have taken it upon themselves to expose the Israeli public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories”. On Operation Protective Edge, the founder of the organisation and former IDF soldier Yehuda Shaul had the following to say:

One of the biggest lies of this operation and Cast Lead is that we’re doing everything to avoid civilian casualties. When you use artillery in a place like Gaza you can’t say you are taking every precaution. It’s not the case that generals are looking to kill more civilians, far from that. But we are far away from the official line that everything is being done to avoid civilian casualties.”

I’m of the perhaps unfashionable opinion that it doesn’t matter a damn whether the general of an occupying force pours himself a whiskey at the end of an evening, wipes the sweat away from his brow, and wonders if that artillery which hit a UN-run school should have been fired. The point is that there was still an unjustifiable attack on civilians, rather than whether the general was upset at the end of it. What matters is level of predictability and scope, and it takes a great deal of mental acrobatics to see the sheer scale of the atrocities committed in Gaza and to arrive at the conclusion that the Israeli military, in anything besides interviews and PR, concerns itself greatly with the lives of Palestinian civilians. Statements like the ones above merely corroborate what the average cynic would have suspected all along.

Liberal apologetics in the Huffington Post

A rather silly bit of apologia on the Huffington Post has been doing the rounds by a writer called Ali A. Rizvi, which asks that we consider 7 things before we pick a side in the “Middle East Conflict” (I think he means the Israeli assault on Gaza). The writer begins by claiming he’s been “accused” of being pro-Palestinian, though I'm not sure where – presumably some ultra-rightist on Twitter. A quick look through his post history shows him to be a new atheist who has devoted column inches to the supposed “myth” of Islamophobia whilst writing profiles of Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, who has in the past described Islam, a religion of over one billion adherents, as a “destructive, nihilistic cult of death” and who has called for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in the current assault on Gaza which has killed over 400 children at time of writing. I will leave the reader to decide upon the author’s professed neutrality, based on the intellectual company he keeps. Now, onto the substance, such that it is.

The first point made in the piece is a typical trope pulled out by IDF and Likud apologists, that it is wrong for the weight of international opinion to bear down so heavily on Israel, because there are more people dying in other conflicts. The big question mark placed at the end of this is the supposition of closet anti-semitism on the part of Israel’s critics. The author writes: “If I were Assad or ISIS right now, I'd be thanking God I'm not Jewish.” 

However, there was a great deal of international outcry about the conflict in Syria, and the UK even had a vote in Parliament on whether or not to go to war over it. With the Islamic State, condemnation and outrage at the actions of the group is there in droves. It’s really possible to be in two places at once on these things. What’s perhaps a more important distinction is that the conflicts in Iraq and Syria represent an internal armed conflict – otherwise known as a civil war. Israel’s acts against Gazan civilians represent the acts of an occupying power against a civilian population. Under the Geneva Conventions, Israel has a greater responsibility towards the Palestinians than Assad has towards the Free Syrian Army or the other thousands of resistance groups that have cropped up in the conflict. The outrage against Israel for its actions, therefore, can be defended as an expression of a consistent principle of international law..

Aha – the author says - the Israeli occupation of Gaza ended in 2005 with the unilateral withdrawal of troops! Israel is no longer occupying Gaza since its troops left and has not done so for nine years, so it cannot be said to be bound by the laws of occupation! This point is completely bogus, since the laws of occupation don’t refer simply to “boots on the ground”, but to the exercise of effective control over the area. The UN, which is the most relevant authority in this case, still considers Gaza to be occupied. The only people arguing that the 2005 troop withdrawal constitutes an end to the occupation (which Israel has argued isn't even an occupation, so how could it end?) is the Israli government itself and it's not for individual states to dictate principles of international law to the international community. Occupation doesn't refer merely to troop presence but to exercise of “effective control” over an area, which is quite a complex legal principle, but Opinio Juris has a pretty good post on it here as a useful primer. 

The Huffington Post piece, as of writing, has been shared nearly 50,000 times on Facebook, which suggests that some people are likely going to be persuaded by this sort of propaganda masquerading as moderated reason. Elsewhere, the author asserts that the conflict can be explained by the religious beliefs of the adherents, and points to a few quotes from Jewish and Islamic scripture to make his point, but it's an idealist point that should be rejected outright by anyone wanting anything besides a surface-level understanding of issues in the Middle East. Jews and Muslims live peacefully together just fine in other parts of the world. It's the interjection of Sykes-Picots and Balfour Declarations creating arbitrary borders in the Middle East that leads to conflict. It's true that the rhetoric used in these conflicts is often religious, but the overriding history of the Israel/Palestine conflict is one of politics, both local and geo-.

We are also told to ask ourselves exactly why Israel would deliberately want to kill civilians; the thrust of the point being that Israel should actually be commended rather than condemned for its conduct, because of the firepower it possesses and the capability for it to actually completely annihilate the population of Gaza if it wanted to means that the fact it hasn't demonstrates its high regard for civilian life. Of course, we could extend the very same point to a country like North Korea, which could, if it wanted to, simply shoot all of the 200,000 people it has in its concentration camps. The DPRK, then, should be commended for keeping its political prisoners alive. I just watched Vice's excellent documentary on ISIS – in which an ISIS fighter politely tells a man to get his wife to change the fabric on her veil. He could have beheaded her right there and then – so should he be praised for his exercise of restraint?

It's necessary to combat these sorts of predjdices, because they have a tendency to skew perspectives towards favouring a brutal occupying power at the expense of understanding of the issues. The election of Hamas as the dominant legislative power in the Occupied Territories was a goldmine for supporters of Israel – at last they could have confirmation that the Palestinians are inherently genocidal anti-semites. Let's ignore the fact that in the years before Hamas had far less popularity, or that Islamism was itself heavily fundedby Israel in the 80s to erode Fatah support. All that matters is that we're able to paint the Palestinians as a one-track minded, genocidal “other”, evidenced by the victory of Hamas.

Of course, there are some elements of the piece which pay lip service to the crimes of Israel, and at the end of the piece the author rather confusingly calls upon Israel to end the “occupation” which he'd earlier on argued didn't exist since 2005. That said, the overall tone is one of sympathy for and rationalisation of the occupiers and vilification of the Palestinians. Those of us, meanwhile, who value consistency and facts in our continued desire to understand these issues, would do well to leave this sort of thing well alone.

Friday, 1 August 2014

Why We Should Criticise Israel: A Response to Sam Harris

A new piece has emerged from Sam Harris, which represents his first piece of foreign policy commentary in a while now. It seems he's becoming rusty, because this one contains literally no references whatsoever, and exhibits such a horrendously biased interpretation of the current conflict that its prejudices are worth examining in some detail. 

What strikes me as a particularly odious part of Harris’ piece is that murderous intent expressed by Hamas is given front and centre of the piece’s focus, but equally offensive, racist, theocratic expressions by Zionists are ignored. I’m going to hazard a guess that Harris hasn’t actually read the accounts of Zionists describing the brutal Operation Cast Lead, in which over 1,400 Palestinians were killed as “mowing the lawn”, because if he had it would call into doubt his claim that Israel bombs civilians in sorrow rather than in anger.

If we kill their families, that will frighten them” -  not, as you would perhaps first guess, the brutal injunction of a jihadist death-cult leader, but a recent statement from reserve IDF general Oren Schachor. One doesn’t have to search far to find examples of Israeli justifications for Operation Protective Edge being couched in violent, retributive terms, such as the far-right Israelis revelling in there being “no school tomorrow” in Gaza after the IDF obliterated a UN-run school, killing 19 people and injuring nearly 100. Again, I'm sure Harris would condemn this, but make an aside that Israel is nonetheless pure in its intentions towards the Palestinians, because of reasons.

Even in apologising for its own citizens' crimes, the Israeli state seeks to demonise the oppressed population of the Palestinian Territories in any way it can. See, for instance, Prime Minister Bejnamin Netanyahu’s response to the brutal murder by a group of ultra-Zionists of Palestinian teenager Mohammad Abu Khdeir, beaten, then forced to drink gasoline before being set on fire and burning to death. The apology? That “…there is no place for such murderers in our society. In that we stand apart from our neighbours – In their society murderers are seen as heroes and have squares named after them” – one would be forgiven for forgetting, for a moment, that what was being decried were the actions of Israeli citizens. Even these can be attributed to being more closely aligned with the supposedly murderous Palestinian character, in the eyes of the Israeli state.

These injunctions to racism and demonisation of the populations of the Palestinian territories surely bely Harris’ claim that all Israel wants is to live peacefully with its neighbors and expand its technology sector. In any case, why the Israeli population would want to live peacefully besides people it considers to be members of a death cult is never explained, nor does Harris explain why the Israelis themselves should desire this. He points to the Hamas charter, a decades-old document generally ignored or denounced by the Hamas leadership, of evidence of the Palestinian’s murderous intent towards Jews. So if the charter is such a big deal, why bother making injunctions towards peaceful co-existence? There couldn’t be peaceful co-existence with the Nazis, after all, how can there be peaceful co-existence with a group of people who are, according to Harris, murderous anti-semites? It’s this kind of racist portrayal of the Palestinians as being a revenge cult that impedes progress towards a peace settlement and it’s exactly the kind of racism – yes, racism – that pervades Harris’ article.

The obvious retort to Harris’ invocation of the Hamas Charter is that the Hamas charter is in no way representative of the goals of the Palestinian population or even Hamas as an organisation. All it takes is one lazy Wikipedia search to find a quote from Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas, stating that the Charter is “a piece of history and longer relevant.” Of course, none of that matters if your intent is to demonise the Palestinians and blame elements of their leadership for the massacring of civilian children. You can just refer to the Charter willy-nilly as if it weren’t written decades ago and rejected in modern times. This is not understanding a situation – it's simplistic grandstanding.

Harris says that all we need to do in order to understand the “moral difference” between Israel and Hamas is to “ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it”, but this is a silly thought experiment that is too abstract and hypothetical to be of any practical value in a conflict which is currently occurring. It’s a crude form of denialism which demands that rather than analyse the actions of the IDF as they are right now, we should instead envisage an entirely fictional conflict, in which dynamics, economics, politics, history and political support are completely reversed and judge the actions of Hamas in that, instead. Why we need to perform these mental acrobatics and imagine conflicts by which we should judge Hamas’ non-existent actions is beyond me, since we have a conflict currently unfolding before our very eyes in which over 1,300 civilians are dead, thousands more injured and nearly half a million displaced. “War crimes are war crimes”, Harris states. Indeed, they are – so why is the piece entitled “Why I Don’t Criticise Israel”? Surely war criminals are not beyond a bit of criticism?

Harris’ bizarre thought experiment is representative of a particular strain of Harris’ thought which posits religions as mere ideologies; as static things to which people arrive independent of outside influence and then become inspired to action. In Hegelian terms, this is called 'idealism', and it was kindly refuted by a couple of German philosophers over a century ago. To demand that religious extremists give up their religion, as Harris does (a goal I share, incidentally) is to demand the end to a condition which requires religious extremism, not a simplistic condemnation of the ideas themselves.

In Harris' world, all that matters is the ideology, therefore, if it were the Palestinians who had their own technologically advanced state which had illegally occupied two densely populated Israeli areas since 1967 and placed them under brutal occupation, the dynamics of the conflict and rhetoric of both sides would nonetheless remain the same. Thus we can use the Hamas charter as a useful indicator of how Hamas would actually behave if this thought experiment were a reality. As with Harris' approach to theology, all that matters is fundamental principles – nuance and development of the jihadist cause from its roots is irrelevant.

Incidentally, the extreme of Hamas, generally speaking, advocates for an outcome in which all of Israel becomes the state of Palestine. That's undoubtedly an unworkable position, but it's a far cry from Harris' claims that Hamas explicitly desires genocide. Genocide has a very specific legal definition, and throwing it around is ill-advised, because it cheapens the meaning of the term as one reserved for the highest international crime imaginable. The more moderate wing of Hamas, meanwhile, advocates for a two-state solution. Now, Harris does say in his piece that it's wrong to equate Hamas with the whole of the Palestinians, but I'll submit to the reader that really this is just another typical example of Harris trying to have his cake and eat it – trying to deflect criticism by claiming what he said is not what he actually meant. Later on in the article he says that the “Palestinians are trying to kill everyone. Killing women and children is part of the plan” and describes Israel as being “surrounded by people who have genocidal intentions towards them”. I'll leave the reader to decide what Harris' general opinion of the Palestinian population of over 4 million people is.

A far more odious claim in Harris' piece is to lay the blame for Israeli war crimes at the door of the Palestinians themselves. Israeli war crimes can be explained and understood because the Israelis have been “brutalized by this process – that is, made brutal by it. But it is largely due to the character of their enemies.” One is reminded of the old joke about the British soldier stabbing to death the Irishman, sobbing harder with each thrust of the bayonet. The Irishman, in his dying breath, incredulously asks the British soldier why he's crying. The soldier wipes a tear away - “we will never forgive you”, he says, “for what you've made us do to you”. If that seems too parodic, perhaps consider former Israeli PM Golda Meir's statement that “we cannot forgive [the Arabs] for forcing us to kill their children.” One was a joke, another was grandstanding from a colonialist – what's Harris' excuse?

Of course, his excuse is that he's simply making a point about the reality of fighting multiple wars. Only Israel is not fighting a war. It is conductingmilitary action in territories which it has illegally occuped fornearly 50 years. Furthermore, the injunction that Israel is engaging in self-defense would require acknowledgment that Palestine is a state, something explicitly denied by Israel and would also require a lack of effective control over the occupied areas, something which Israel does exercise. Since Israel under the laws of occupation has a greater duty to protect civilian life than it would in a genuine wartime situation, it should not garner praise for what Harris claims is its commendable restraint in this and other military action against the occupied territories – it should receive the utmost condemnation for not exercising enough. The Palestinian Territories are not a belligerent in an external armed conflict, and it serves us well to reiterate that Israel has illegally occupied the West Bank and Gaza since 1967, again something conveniently left out of Harris' piece.

In any case, it's true to the point of truism that war has a detrimental effect on the moral character of its participants. Picture Old Major from Fawlty Towers, whose only good word about the Germans is that their women are “good card players” or John McCain's occasional use of the word “gooks” to refer to the Vietnamese. It's entirely correct that Israeli brutality can be explained by the nature of the conflict. That said, I don't see why only Israel gets this sort of empathy, yet the people living in the Palestinian Territories, the majority of which are far more likely to have a family member who was killed or wounded than the average Israeli citizen is, are condemned for following an extreme ideology. Can we not expect some consistency in what was an otherwise fairly salient point?

Ultimately, Harris' piece demonstrates that he's once again on the wrong side of history with regards to the inherent rightness of the west and her allies. The day will hopefully one day come when the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is behind us, the Palestinians have their own separate state, and we can see the occupation in the same way we see view the oppression of blacks in South Africa under apartheid. In the meantime, we will have to put up with a lot more ill-informed apologia like that present in Harris' piece. Hopefully the rest of us will have some good sense to exercise some empathy and that much-sought after but rarely exercised critical thought.

Tuesday, 15 July 2014

A Poem for Michael Gove

So, farewell then
Michael Gove
Hated by educators
And public alike
How does it feel to know
You'll never again be the cause
Of a teacher's strike?

Wednesday, 9 July 2014

Iraq 2014: Relight the Fire

Yes I know it's been a while. Maybe it's nostalgia that brought me back here. Seeing Iraq on the news again, hearing people talking about “cutting and running”, lots of people talking about scary jihadis, armchair theologians who probably don't know a single Muslim talking about what they imagine are the intricacies of Islamic doctrine. That sort of stuff gives someone a twinge of longing - “hey”, you think, “I used to write about shit like that.”

So you go switch on the news and do a bit of research. Though I have to say, one thing that's changed is I've totally given up on the BBC for my coverage of these sorts of events. Someone showed me a video the other day of a nightly news report in 2003 with the BBC's Chief Sycophant (they call it “Politics Editor” over there) Andrew Marr reporting on the fall of Baghdad. It's a glorious victory, he proclaims in the video. Ministers are walking around with smiles like “split watermelons”. Blair's critics need to shutup – they've been proven wrong and he's been proven right! Yeah, you idiots – who cares about terrorist attacks? They might happen, but everyone in Number 10 is having a good time right now, so don't harsh their buzz.