![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribOn 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 10:48 pm (UTC)What the heck has getting the Holy Land back got to do with never giving up? Survival is the ultimate goal here and the Jews have survived against enormous odds.
They might not get a Palestinian Homeland, although they arguably should, but what makes you think they'll meekly just vanish.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 10:51 pm (UTC)From Israel's POV, anyway. I'm sure the Palestinian Arabs themselves would care a lot about which fate resulted in peace, and the one they prefer is the scenario in which they crush and destroy Israel.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-05 10:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-06 01:03 am (UTC)Israel has repeatedly stated that she will accept a two-state solution if the Palestinians eliminate the part of their charter that calls for the destruction of Israel, and cease all warlike operations against Israel thereafter.
However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Gaza blockade, as Gaza is ruled by Hamas, rather than by the Palestinian Authority which would be Israel's negotiating partner. If the Palestinian Authority and Israel were to agree to a two-state solution tomorrow, this would neither end the state of war between Israel and Hamas, nor lift the Gaza Blockade.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-06 07:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-06 08:22 pm (UTC)If the Palestinians wanted a two-state solution, they would stop trying to MURDER ISRAELI CIVILIANS. Israel has stated that she will discuss a two-state solution when the Palestinians do this. Not only is murdering civilians illegal and a problem for any such solution, it is inherently evil, unlike the construction of housing which is, by normal standards, inherently good.
Why do you condemn the Israelis, first foremost and only, for this?