![[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 05:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 01:44 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 02:27 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 02:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 02:39 pm (UTC)Rocket attacks from Hamas are not an existential threat. They are the equivalent of an Indian raid on an isolated settlement. Hamas sends a rocket over, Israel sends an artillery shell back.
In the meantime, Israel works hard (or allows others to work hard) to develop an economy in Gaza. Given the choice between a decent life and getting killed, many Gazans will take the former.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 02:45 pm (UTC)Very true. But maybe the Israelis would rather not have Hamas launching rockets from the Gaza, and one good way to prevent this is for the rockets to not be allowed in.
In the meantime, Israel works hard (or allows others to work hard) to develop an economy in Gaza. Given the choice between a decent life and getting killed, many Gazans will take the former.
Certainly, but as long as Hamas, the power which rules the Gaza, would rather launch rockets into Israel, Hamas will launch rockets into Israel.
My personal opinion is that the agreement under which Israel yielded that Gaza was that the Gaza would not be used as a base for attacks against Israel; since the Gaza is being so used, Israel should simply declare the deal violated, reoccupy the Gaza, and hang every member of Hamas they can capture. Yes, this would make Israel look stupid for handing the Gaza over in the first place, but sometimes one needs to admit that one has made an error.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 08:12 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 08:18 pm (UTC)Just because you're the nicest dick in human history doesn't make it ok to be a dick.
A siege is an operation of war; by definition "war" involves violence and the threat of violence to enemies, which you have so brilliantly and poetically termed being a "dick" to them. If you want to criticize the Israelis for choosing to conduct operations of war against the Gaza then go ahead, but do not pretend that the Israelis are being exceptionally brutal in their actions when they are not. And giving this impression by implication, by omitting the relevant context, is dishonesty -- it is a lie by omission.
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?
Considering that ripping the hearts out of sacrificial victims was a normal sacrament of most native Mesoamerican religions, while pedophilia is an illegal aberration of Catholic Christianity, and if we add to this that it is generally deemed worse to be killed than to be sexually molested, one could indeed logically conclude that ancient Mesoamerican religions were more abusive and brutal than is modern Catholic Christianity. Indeed, I would worry about the ability of anyone who cpuldn't come to that conclusion to apply common sense to reality.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 08:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 08:27 pm (UTC)As for the meta issue - you're not good with analogy or metaphor are you?
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 08:28 pm (UTC)Very little, actually, assuming that the Israelis mass a suitably large force in advance and don't let themselves be dissuaded by "world opinion." What were you envisioning "going wrong," such that it would prevent the success of the enterprise, were the Israelis determined to win?
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 08:34 pm (UTC)Gosh, let me think... bodies lying in the streets, dead kids, destroyed buildings, old women crying in the rubble on CNN, global outcry, getting bogged down in a messy, protracted street-to-street clearance, a messy urban war lasting months, watching their international support and money dwindling and probably an upswing in Israel directed terrorism.
That's without even trying. I bet there are some REALLY bad scenarios that a full scale invasion could lead to.
I mean, what could possibly go wrong invading a piss-ant nation like Iraq? It'll be over in days...
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 08:38 pm (UTC)Then what should the Israelis be doing about Hamas launching raids and firing rockect against Israeli territory from the Gaza?
There are so many reasons why the siege itself isn't working, probably isn't going to work and is politically a massive own goal both locally and internationally.
I agree, actually, that a protracted siege is a poor solution, since it is a constant generator of incidents which can be used by anti-Israeli propagandists and the continued survival of the Hamas regime gives hope to the Terrorists in general. That's why I favor an Israeli assault, to take back the Gaza for nonpayment of peace (in the original deal which yielded the territory), and also in the hopes of rounding up Hamas leaders for execution or imprisonment.
As for the meta issue - you're not good with analogy or metaphor are you?
I fully understood your analogy and metaphor. It was a poorly chosen one, because trying to demonstrate the alleged lack of moral superiority of modern Christian Catholicism over medieval Mesoamerican polytheism only made it obvious that modern Christian Catholicism is vastly the moral superior of the old native faith.
Here, I'll bail you out. Let's pretend that you'd said:
"It's like saying, well sure the c. 1500 Spanish Catholics occasionally murdered innocents in rigged convictions for heresy leading to autos-de-fe, but the c. 1500 Mesoamericans used to routinely conduct human sacrifices - in comparison what's it to occasionally burn an alleged heretic alive, eh?"
Here, the simile works because the atrocities compared are roughly equivalent (human sacrifice, in both cases), but the only difference might be the absolute or relative numbers involved. I might still argue that the Mesoamericans were worse, but I could not argue that 16th-century Spanish Catholicism did not bear the seeds of at least as much official evil. In fact, since it was one of the motivators of the genocidal wars the conquistadores waged against the natives, I might be wrong making such an argument.
To conclude, I'm very good with analogy and metaphor. You're just very incompetent at making such comparisons.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 08:39 pm (UTC)But simple and final don't equal being morally right.
I actually didn't stumble into this Indian metaphor. The Palestinians have been in possession of the land longer then the Franks in France or the Angles in England. They do, in short, have legitimate claims.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 08:41 pm (UTC)Yes, I could see that, but at most it would last for "months." And then it would be over, and the world would move on to new events.
By comparison, this siege could last for decades, given that the Israelis aren't cutting off the Gaza from anything really vital. And by sitting there passively, the Israelis are letting the Bad Guys have the initiative.
I mean, what could possibly go wrong invading a piss-ant nation like Iraq? It'll be over in days...
Aside from the fact that I never thought it would be over in "days" (or even "months" -- I always assumed there'd be a postwar insurgency), Iraq is a nation. The Gaza is a city. The scale of the two campaigns are not comparable.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 08:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 08:45 pm (UTC)But simple and final don't equal being morally right.
Quite true. Actually, what I hope the Israelis will ultimately do is drive out (rather than "wipe out") those Palestinian Arabs who cannot accept the continued existence of the State of Israel; in a few generations, "Palestinian" will be absorbed into other cultures, and the last vestiges of the problem will end. At least in a military and diplomatic sense.
I actually didn't stumble into this Indian metaphor. The Palestinians have been in possession of the land longer then the Franks in France or the Angles in England. They do, in short, have legitimate claims.
Indeed they do. And, if they were prepared to be reasonable about compromise with the Israeli claims, I might have more sympathy with the Palestinians.
But they haven't been reasonable. They began attacking the Israelis when the Israelis were private settlers purchasing land from the Turks; they tried to wipe out Israel at its birth, and when they lost war after war they rejected every offer of peaceful coexistence.
How many times can you reasonably expect, or morally require Israel to, continue offering peace when the offers are rejected by the Palestinians? How long can the Palestinians keep doing this before you will conclude that they are not willing to accept any peace that includes permanent Israeli survival?
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 08:50 pm (UTC)Precisely.
But who has forced war in this situation? The Palestinians had the option of peacefully enjoying their control over the Gaza, and trying to build something worthwhile there. Had they done this, there would have been no bombardment, no punitive raid, and no subsequent siege.
Instead, they chose war. This was a very foolish choice, since they were dealing with a peaceful but not pacifistic rival who was very much stronger than them. But one's own weakness is not the same as virtue, nor is the enemy's strength the same as viciousness.
If you see the consequences of the war as "bad," then why are you not condemning Hamas, primarily? They, after all, started the war.
You are in the moral position of a man who condemns the Allied bombardment of Hamburg but is silent regarding any German actions in the same war.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 08:52 pm (UTC)What do you do to get it?
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 09:05 pm (UTC)In a counterinsurgency, one offers real rewards for cooperation and selective punishment for non-cooperation. Were I a God-King, I'd be strongly tempted to lift the maritime blockade and open the Egyptian border completely, while leaving my border sealed.
I would give Hamas a reasonably-brief time to install their own power and water generation, and then stop providing it from my end (whether or not they had their own stuff on). In short, make Hamas actually have to govern!
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 09:34 pm (UTC)What Chris said.
And, seriously It was a poorly chosen one, because trying to demonstrate the alleged lack of moral superiority of modern Christian Catholicism over medieval Mesoamerican polytheism only made it obvious that modern Christian Catholicism is vastly the moral superior of the old native faith.
Does the whooshing sound that points make as they fly over your head get distracting at any time?
Then what should the Israelis be doing about Hamas launching raids and firing rockect against Israeli territory from the Gaza?
That's a good question and I don't think you like the answer because, like with the IRA in the UK, and ETA in Spain, history has shown that even against an implacable enemy who wants nothing more than total victory the best way to deal with it is through a policy of engagement and not reacting to terrorism with more terror.
Diplock courts, internment of all suspected terrorists and IRA members, massive army intrusions and so forth took a small local problem and turned it into a multi-decade debacle in Northern Ireland.
The Comparison here would have been a British invasion of the republic of Ireland, which wouldn't have helped.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 09:37 pm (UTC)OTOH, what would you do about Gaza when the next shots were fired from their side of the frontier?
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 09:38 pm (UTC)You are in the moral position of a man who condemns the Allied bombardment of Hamburg but is silent regarding any German actions in the same war.
Funny, I was thinking exactly the same about you.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 09:41 pm (UTC)But generally giving people their own problems to worry about can work wonders. It seems to be in Northern Ireland.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 09:41 pm (UTC)The war (why the scare-quotes?) is highly relevant, because it is in the context of the existence of a war between Israel and Hamas that the siege is being conducted. Were there no war, then Israel really would be behaving with bizarre sadism toward a bunch of innocuous poor people in a pathetic backwater port city.
And if you morally condemn operations of war, then surely the issue who started the war is morally relevant. Or are you saying that self-defense is morally no better than aggression?
Had Hamas sat and enjoyed its rule over the Gaza without attacking Israel, there would now be no siege.