Chief Sitting Bull and Hamas, or The Limits of Self Defense

[chris_gerrib]

On June 25, 1876, Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer, leading 700 men, attacked an Indian encampment led by Chief Sitting Bull on the banks of the Little Bighorn River in modern-day Montana. By the next morning, Custer and 267 of his men would be dead. It was the single worst defeat suffered by the US Army in the entire Plains Indian wars, which ran from 1860 to 1890.

President US Grant reportedly did not react well to the defeat. However, 12 years prior, at Cold Harbor, then General Grant had suffered 7,000 casualties, 10 times Custer’s entire command, in less than an hour of fighting in a single day.

In short, although Sitting Bull had scored a serious victory, there was no concern that Sitting Bull could in any way overthrow the United States government. Everybody on both sides was quite aware of that fact, and based their actions accordingly.

I mention this because I have been following the debate over the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Now, I don’t want to get bogged down in the legalities of blockade and boarding. I want to focus on a bigger picture – the idea that Israel is “fighting for its life” and has therefor unlimited rights of self-defense. Related to this is the idea that Hamas has vowed to never tolerate Israel.

First, no nation, Israel included, should have to tolerate rocket attacks over its borders. So Israel does in fact have a right to self defense. It is certainly justified, when dealing with a life-or-death situation, to do whatever is needed to survive. For most of Israel’s history, it was in a life-or-death struggle.

But Israel is not, in fact, “fighting for its life.” Hamas or Hezbollah or both can no more destroy Israel then Sitting Bull could destroy Washington. It doesn’t matter what Hamas wants or says – they can’t get even close to accomplishing it. Nor can they get this capability. Iran, their chief sponsor, doesn’t have the capability, either with conventional means or its not-yet-existent nuclear weapons. Even if Iran had the capability, they neither can nor would it give that capability to Hamas. Israel is too valuable to Iran’s domestic policy as a threat in being, the logistics for conventional weapons are too daunting, (try smuggling in a hundred tanks!) plus there’s that little issue of thermonuclear retaliation.

Arguing, therefore, that anything Israel does is justified by self-defense is like arguing that anything done to the American Indians was completely justified. Putting the conflict in that context makes the argument clear. Don't get me wrong - the farther away one is from the fighting the easier it is to put it in perspective, so this is not intended as a moral judgment on Israel or Israelis. But, putting things in context is what a friend does - be that friend a nation or a person.

Putting Hamas in the context of the Indian Wars provides a much more useful framework to dealing with the problem. Although the modern term “counterinsurgency” hadn’t been invented then, use of counterinsurgency tactics were what eventually prevailed. These tactics include things like economic development, using “natives” for security forces, having at least marginal cultural awareness, and yes, proportional response to provocations.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

What does this have to do with the actual situation, in which Israel is conducting one of the most humane and civilized sieges and blockades of an enemy port ever recorded in the history of warfare? If you disagree with my statement, you are welcome to point to some more humane and civilized ones, if you can think of any.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Israel is claiming to be blockading Gaza to stop weapons from entering. Yet on the list of forbidden items are things like concrete, fresh meat and fishing rods. This leads me to believe the purpose of the blockade is not to stop weapons, but to punish the Gazans.

It is not effective. It is no more effective then random arial bombardment is at breaking the morale of the bombed people. Putting Gaza in a counterinsurgency light would make that lack of effectiveness immediately obvious.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Israel is claiming to be blockading Gaza to stop weapons from entering. Yet on the list of forbidden items are things like concrete, fresh meat and fishing rods. This leads me to believe the purpose of the blockade is not to stop weapons, but to punish the Gazans.

The reason for banning concrete should be fairly obvious to you. If it isn't, I'll explain it later.

As for the other things, of course the Israelis want to inconvenience the Gazans. This is a siege.

Do you know how a siege is normally conducted? The besieger does not let supplies into the besieged city. No food, no medicine, and (if it's possible to smash or poison the wells) no water. The besieger then waits for the city's supplies to run out.

I agree with you that what the Israelis are doing is "not effective." But not because the Israelis are being too cruel.

Rather, it's because the Israelis are being too kind.

Here, you want to hear about a siege in the Mideast in relatively recent times?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1948)

Tell me if the Arabs let in chocolate, okay?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Oh, and btw, you haven't addressed the issue of whether or not the blockade of Gaza is successfully preventing the entry of weapons. Not completely, of course (nothing ever is), but it seems to me that it is making it a lot harder and more dangerous for Hamas to resupply, which would justify the effort.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

Israel wants Gaza to be completely dependent on them. That's why they're not getting things that can be grown or raised for meat or milk (goats, chickens, coriander) or things that can last for months (dried fruit, canned food, honey, chocolate).

The lack of books and writing materials makes me think of the German occupation of Warsaw.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

For the record here, random aerial bombardment is extremely effective at breaking the morale of the bombed people. You just have to keep at it. I submit Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a case in point. The current notion that wars are won by any method other than killing the enemy is a dangerously incorrect one.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Just because you're the nicest dick in human history doesn't make it ok to be a dick.

Consequently comparisons like this are pretty pointless.

It's like saying, well sure some catholic priests abuse children but the ancient Mayans used to rip their hearts out - in comparison what's a little kiddie fiddling eh?

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Jordan: "I'm the most humane and polite wife-beater ever! You can't find a more human wife-beater! Why are you complaining about my wife-beating?"

Enough!

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Ok, I've been knee-jerk posting reactions to Jordan's ramblings - which is always my problem with him.

So I'll take my leave of the thread with my apologies to the host.

Re: Enough!

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

No, your problem is that you're a rather poor debater, and when I show up the flaws in your arguments, you get angry, which makes you an even worse practicioner of forensics. You actually have some decent ideas from time to time, you're just bad at expressing them rationally.

[lather2002.livejournal.com]

The civilized thing for Israel to do would be to retake the Gaza Strip and deport all of it's inhabitants (along with deporting all of Arabs (the so-called Palestinians) from all of Israel and replace them with Jewish settlers. If the current Israeli population is not large enough to do such, then the Israeli Government should let it be known that there is "free land" for any and all Jews outside Israel as long those that come commit to becoming Israeli citizens, to live there, and develop said land with farms, businesses and residential communities. Just saying.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

The civilized thing for Germany to do would be to retake Poland and deport all of it's inhabitants (along with deporting all of Slavs (the so-called Polish) from all of Germany and replace them with German settlers. If the current German population is not large enough to do such, then the German Government should let it be known that there is "free land" for any and all Germans outside Germany as long those that come commit to becoming German citizens, to live there, and develop said land with farms, businesses and residential communities. Just saying.

...

[banner.livejournal.com]

It is apparent to me that you really do not understand war, or just how small Israel is. I also do not think you understand how close Iran is to having an atomic bomb. The hardest part of building a bomb is getting the nuclear material, which supposedly Iran now has more than enough of to build several. Building the bomb itself is trivial.

If Iran can simply ship one to Gaza for a ground detonation, they do not need any missiles or aircraft to deliver it. Sure everyone in Gaza will die, but so what? Martyrs to the cause and it will all be blamed on the Jews anyway. But one bomb there, one on the Lebanon border, and Israel is history.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

. I also do not think you understand how close Iran is to having an atomic bomb.

And you do? Gosh. Have you told the CIA?

Seriously, guys, this is all you've got?

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

They can't be any worse than South Africa was in the 80s.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

So... What you are effectively saying here is that the smaller party in a war is always morally justified due exclusively to their underdog status? That any actions taken by an underdog may not be countered by the greater power?

The problems with your suggestions here are many.

Hamas would kill any "native security forces" that worked for Israel.

Hamas is not an insurgency in the gaza strip, they are the elected government, it is the actual populace of the gaza strip that is the opposition. Ergo, this is far more correctly a war between sovereign nations than a counterinsurgency.

Israel has the options of invading the gaza strip, invoking a real siege, doing nothing, or doing what they are doing. Those are essentially all their options as pertains to the autonomous region of gaza. They may not attempt to execute a "hearts and minds" campaign in gaza, because they do not control it. In order to execute the tactics you have suggested, it would first be necessary to invade and occupy the territory.

The notion that Israel is useful to Iran as a threat is based on what exactly? Would not the US work as that threat if Iran were to cause the destruction of Israel? There is always an enemy for those that want one.

What won the war against the North American indigenous population had little to do with the factors you have listed. What eventually prevailed was fairly straightforward war fighting. Leaving the fighters, and those that supported them, no ground to go to. Overwhelming them with vastly superior numbers, farming their hunting grounds. When it became painfully obvious to the natives that winning wasn't one of their options, they surrendered rather than be annihilated. *after* their surrender, the factors you listed came into play.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

The USA is not nearly the irritant to Iran that Israel is. In part what makes the USA bad is our support for Israel.

Regarding the Indian Wars - you may not be aware, but I have a degree in Military History and have studied that era. Much of what was eventually successful was in fact counterinsurgency. Faced with extinction, people will in fact fight to the death. The idea that the indians could survive after surrender made surrender possible.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The ultimate problem with the idea that the weaker party to a conflict is always right is that it makes victory inherently immoral, since before one can win, one must become the stronger party to the conflict, so even if one started out as David, one must be Goliath at some point before the end of the war. This leads to endless wars, since one holds back every time one approaches victory.

[melvin-udall.livejournal.com]

You know what I find funny?

I do not very much like Israel. In fact, I'd go as far as to say I dislike the country rather strongly.


What I find funny is that I come to watch an exchange between the critics of Israel and its defenders, and every single time I do I find myself liking Israel more due to my utter distaste for the ridiculous arguments provided against them.


Comparisons to the Indian Wars. To the civil rights movement. Comedy gold. Or it would be if it wasn't killing people and leaving another group of people in perpetual misery. We have Helen Thomas today saying all the Jews should just "go back" to Europe or the United States. (Now there is an opening for a fine comparison to the civil rights movement, just certainly not the one she intends.)

I find it all rather insulting to my intelligence. I'd rather people be honest with themselves and others rather than shoehorn ludicrous rationalizations and comparisons in their support of Jew (and America) hating killers and global socialists. If the ideology involved in supporting the "Palestinians" is so superior, why is it so few are willing to be honest about it? Hell, at least Armageddonijad, Hammas and Hezbollah have the courage of their convictions enough to say what they think.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

I don't see why they're not moving back to Europe or America.

Actually, I think they are. I read somewhere (probably Civfanatics or I Love Everything) that young and educated Jews are leaving Israel, never to return.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I hate to point out the blindingly obvious here, but if the Palestinians want Israel to stop blockading them and conducting retaliatory air and artillery strikes, all they have to do is stop attacking Israel, whether by unguided target-of-random-chance bombardment rockets or young women indoctrinated and brainwashed into becoming suicide bombers. But remember, we're talking about a people whom none of the Arab nations so outspoken on their behalf want or will take in, composed mostly of people who were kicked out of Jordan after the third time they tried to overthrow its legitimate government.

Hamas and Hezbollah CAN INDEED destroy Israel; not directly perhaps, but by isolating it in the easily-misled court of world opinion so that nobody cares when Syria or Iran or whoever next attacks it (a tactic with which most of the bleeding hearts in the world willingly cooperate). You talk about Gaza being beseiged? Israel has effectively been under siege, surrounded by hostile Arab nations that have sworn to not just conquer it but erase it from the face ot the earth, since 1948. In that time it has managed to make peace with only two of them, Jordan and Egypt. Not for lack of trying; Israel has repeatedly been attacked, defeated the attacker and siezed territory, then freely given it back. They've offered half a dozen different plans to try to make peace with the Palestinians, they've offered concessions and land grants, and everything they've offered has been been thrown back in their teeth lightly seasoned with artillery rockets and suicide bombers.


What more do you want from Israel? Really?



A friend of mine said once that the greatest accomplishment of the Palestinians has been to make the Israelis as crazy as the Palestinians are. Honestly, I think the Israelis can be forgiven for becoming a little crazy. I'd be a little crazy in their place, but I don't think I'd manage to display as much patience and restraint as they have. But the Palestinians make the Israelis on their craziest days look sane and reasonable. I'll guarantee you if Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, within thirty days the Palestinians would be either at each other's throats, or dispossessed again by whichever Arab nation(s) moved into the breach.

[oronoda.livejournal.com]

A friend of mine said once that the greatest accomplishment of the Palestinians has been to make the Israelis as crazy as the Palestinians are.

Haha, this.

However, I disagree only slightly with the rest of your comments. I was watching Pro-Palestine protesters on youtube and almost all of them said that they cannot live in a two state solution. They just want the "Jews to go away." Which is sad because polls that came out in Israel indicated a majority want a two state solution.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

When your scenario for destroying Israel requires the services of Tom Clancy, perhaps it's not quite, realistic.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Hamas honored a cease-fire, until Israel broke it.

Israel's "concessions" and "land grants"... grants? What land were they granting and how did they get the right to grant it?

Has Israel offered statehood or citizenship? No. Anything else is noise.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Comments on this post are turning into namecalling, personal insults and are becoming repetitious. I'm locking this post. Feel free to take this topic elsewhere.