The War on Terror in pictures
(above) A destroyed clothing factory following an Israeli air strike in suburbs of Beirut; August 12; AP
(left) Picture taken 12 August 2006 shows buildings destroyed by Israeli bombardment in the southern suburbs of Beirut; AFP
(right) The middle floors of an apartment building in the suburbs of Beirut after an Israeli air strike Saturday, August 12; AP
(right) No walking street sign is seen next to a destroyed building that used to house the offices and studios of Hezbollah's Al Nour radio station; AP.
"Smile, my son, otherwise we may be accused of anti-Semitism."
Pictures from the indispensable Norman Finkelstein.
Labels: Blair
posted by David Wearing at 9:06 AM
20 Comments:
Dear David,
did you catch George Galloway's appearance on FOX, sorry, Sky?
Hi - thanks for your comment. Sorry for the delay in responding. Been away since Friday.
I didn't see the interview, but I've read a transcript on Counterpunch. I assume its accurate.
http://www.counterpunch.org/galloway08152006.html
I won't pick the whole thing apart but this exchange was particularly noteworthy, I felt.
"Galloway: America has given Israel missiles that can target not just every city in Lebanon, but every city in the Arab and Muslim world including Iran! Why should America be allowed to give long range missiles to Israel including hundreds of nuclear missiles, but
(Anna interrupts) Because it's given it to a terrorist organization!
Galloway: But, they are not a terrorist organization! Only in the mind of Rupert Murdoch's Sky and The Times and the .
(Anna interrupts) I wont, come on! I want to stop you there, Mr Galloway! Prescribed terrorist organization.
Galloway: They are not a terrorist organization! It's Israel who is the terrorist
(Anna continues talking at the same time) One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. We know that perfectly well.
Galloway: (speaking at the same time) Precisely. Precisley."
Now I've wondered about something for a while. Does Galloway exist, or is he just the invention of some humourless right-wing comedian who wants to parody the anti-war movement of their own imagination?
Much of what "Galloway" says I agree with, but its all undone by idiotic comments like the above.
Let's be clear. During the recent conflict Hizbollah fired Katyusha rockets into civilian areas of Israel and threatened to strike Tel Aviv should Israel keep up its own acts of terrorism. That means that Hizbollah is guilty of terrorism and war crimes, uncontroversially.
For example
http://hrw.org/english/docs/ 2006...no13921_txt.htm
I'm well aware of what Israel is guilty of (see my articles below and a detailed one in the pipeline at the moment) but unlike Galloway and a small but sadly prominent minority in the British left, I don't think that means that I can take some boneheaded manichean view of the conflict and that I can come out in support of Hizbollah and be excused from thinking too hard about what that actually means. The Israeli government's supporters seem to think that if they scream the word terrorist loud enough this mitigates whatever Israel does. The likes of Galloway seem to think that if they scream imperialism loud enough they can say that "Hizbollah is not a terrorist organisation".
People with a basic level of intelligence should be able to hold these two thoughts in their heads simultaneously:
1. Israel has waged a terrorist war on Lebanon
2. Hizbollah has waged a terrorist war on Israel
That, apparently, is far too complicated for George Galloway.
There's a broader, more important point here. We have a moral responsibility to end our collective participation - via our government - with Israeli terrorism. That means making the political case within our own country. We're hardly helping our chances of success when we loudly proclaim our "support" for murdering terrorists. All we're doing is passing the ammo to cretins like Oliver Kamm, Cohen et al and inviting them to shoot. And as long as we fail to restrain our government, people will continue to die. Time surely for some of us to grow up and face our responsibilities. And time surely for the right-thinking majority in the anti-war movement to jettison George Galloway for good.
Give me Tony Benn any day.
Actually you have the thoughts wrong:
1) Israel waged a terrorist war on Lebanon
2) In response to that terrorism, Hezbollah also used terrorist acts.
And that's the point that you seem to be wilfully missing. Retaliation is very different to unprovoked violence (which Israel's was. There might have been provocation, but not enough to justify anything like this). And Hezbollah's terrorism was at least proportional, and no different I suspect than would be used by any equivalent state equipped with similar arms. I suspect that a majority (and I'd wage a large majority) of Lebanese supported these retaliations, and furthermore I suspect that if Hezbollah had not had these rockets, then Israel wouldn't have stopped when it did (after all if you can bomb with no cost to yourself, then why stop until you have reached your objectives). What were the alternatives open to Hezbollah?
In all other respects Hezbollah is not a terrorist organisation. As for the political wing, there is much to admire. Democratic in orientation, anti-corruption, non-sectarian (both of these are a revelation in Lebanon), building good social services (and while some of the money comes from Iran, much of it comes from the Lebanese, and not just Shiites), focused on building strong (non-sectarian) Lebanese institutions and is extremely pragmatic. It is certainly not a totalitarian, or militaristic organisation (nor is it, as the decent left ludicrously suggest, "fascist"). There are aspects to their religiosity which could be worrying, but currently seem to provid a moral core to their political vision (i.e. do good things). Islam has its good and bad aspects, much like any religion. Hezbollah seem to (these days) draw on the positive aspects. Given that change in the middle east will probably come through Islamic parties, that is something to be encouraged. True they could change, but that's hardly a reason to condemn them until it does.
Secondly, its important to seperate one's moral position, from what is the tactically smart thing to do. It might be tactically stupid to proclaim our "support" for "murdering terrorists", because it gives ammo to people like Kamm, Cohen, etc - but that doesn't change the moral position. The reason it gives them ammo is because years of very successful propoganda has created a situation where people unreflexively consider Hezbollah a terrorist organisation (while not thinking the same about Israel). Otherwise it would be tactically stupid for Kamm, etc to proclaim support for Israel (whose acts in this war, and that which preceeded it, were far worse than anything Hezbollah have ever threatened). This manifestly isn't the case. Tactics are important, and much of the far left have appaling tactics. But they should never be confused with morality.
Off topic (because I don't think its relevant in this case) - Human Rights Watch are not an unbiased observer of human rights violations. I think one can accept Amnesty Reports at face value (bar the occasional fuck up), but (possibly due to their origins in the cold war, possibly due to close connections to the US political elite) you can't do the same with HRW reports.
Oh, and Galloway is an idiot. I cringe almost every time he opens his mouth (though every now and then he'll do something which makes me forgive him).
I followed the debate at leninology and here with interest and appreciate your willingness to engage. I am involved in exactly the same on another site and find it is complex, nuanced and worthy of considerable time to analyze in depth. To insist (as some do) that it is a simple decision about "loyalty" is polemics at it's worst.Thanks.
Hell's bells - are you guys following me?
ahem
ok - for the uninitiated this is partly the continuation of a discussion I had with Cian and Troutsky amongst others in the comments section here http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/08/ooh-aah-hezbollah.html
I'm not an huge fan of some of the politics there, but its definitely well researched and worth visiting if only for the many links to interesting source material
Anyway, thanks both for your comments and for visiting here. Hope you like the site
Cian - I'll try to respond to your comments but apologies if I repeat what I've said on Leninology last night and this morning.
Also forgive me if I speak frankly, and don't think it means that I don't welcome your willingness to come here and discuss this in good faith.
Firstly, on retaliation. In war, your opponent having 'started it' doesn't relieve you of moral responsibility. And here's how you can tell this is a dodgy line of reasoning - apologists for Israeli state terror use it all the time. Your rephrasing of point 2 above is just sophistry I'm afraid. There are, for both sides, justifiable and unjustifiable acts of violence whoever started the conflict in question, and firing missiles at civilian areas is not justifiable.
"And Hezbollah's terrorism was at least proportional...."
You see what a bind you've got yourself in here by trying to shoehorn reality into this "I must show solidarity with whoever fights the Imperialists" template? "Hezbollah's terrorism was at least proportional"?!? Good grief, the whole point about terrorism is that its *not* proportional, and nor is it in any way a justifiable method of warfighting. Everyone knows what the moral standard is for the use of violence and that firing rockets where they will kill unarmed civilians, including children, is not up to the mark.
Its times like this you need to remind yourself of what moved you to get involved in politics. Despite this quote I'll bet that what motivated you was compassion for the suffering of innocent people and the deep urge to do something about it. If you've got from that starting point to now finding yourself saying things like "Hezbollah's terrorism was at least proportional" then I'm afraid that's nature's way of telling you its gone a bit wrong somewhere.
"and no different I suspect than would be used by any equivalent state equipped with similar arms".
This is irrelevant. We judge actions by moral standards like international law, not the lowest common denominator set by historic behaviour. That's far too convenient for people who use violence. And again you can tell this is a dodgy line of reasoning because apologists for Israeli state terror use it all the time.
"I suspect that a majority (and I'd wage a large majority) of Lebanese supported these retaliations...."
Yes they did, and quite understandably so. But that's for them, in their situation and in their political context.
Here's the basic problem with the position held by you guys at Lenin's Tomb. We're not Lebanese, and we don't get to just attach ourselves to their plight and live this conflict vicariously through them. We're British (damnit!). And that means that we're engaging in this situation from a completely different political starting point, within a different socio-political context and with different responsibilities - responsibilities that we need to pay attention to, if we're serious about being helpful here.
Look, as a British person, saying you support Hizbollah is just empty gesture politics (unless you're helping smuggle arms to the front line). Do you think Nasrallah et al hang on the every word of leftie bloggers in the UK who write under fake names? What does it actually mean that you've declared your support for Hizbollah? Its just puffed-up rhetoric as far as I can make out. (In our earlier discussion, "Lenin" said he thinks these gestures help fight racism against Muslims and Arabs! I mean what can you say to that? Tell the objective truth about them, fine. But waving their flag while they're murdering civilians......is fighting racism?!?)
As I said before, the reality is that the only substantial impact your declarations of support have in any direction is within the context of political debate in this country. And in that context, saying you support murderers - apart from the straightforward immorality of it - is the political equivalent of tourette's.
Our government has been assisting in mass murder. Our responsibility was to cease that assistance, and to do so we had a political debate to win. Is it not absolutely stark-staringly obvious that prolaiming your support for people who have (as you say yourself) committed acts of terrorism is a pretty sure fire way of losing a political debate in this country? And given the fact that declaring this support is an otherwise empty gesture - and given the fact that lives were at stake - isn't it grossly irresponsible to vandalise the campaign to change British policy with this futile act of self-indulgence?
As for the rest of what you say, I'm well aware of all the social work Hizbollah's done, that its not as religiously strict as, say, the Iraqi Sadrists, that it engages with the Lebanese body politic as one part of what it accepts is a complex whole, etc etc. And I'm aware that most people probably don't know about these aspects and that a few may even put Nasrallah in the Bin Laden catagory, which he plainly is not. But none of that means that people in this country aren't right to be appalled by the rocket attacks on civilian parts of northern Israel and highly suspicious of anyone who sings the praises of those responsible or tries to justify such atrocities with talk of "proportionate terrorism". That Hizbollah did these things isn't propaganda, nor was it invented out of thin air by HRW, and people aren't dupes if they're disgusted by it. So the tactical and moral questions are not confused, and I'm not proposing that anyone sacrifice morality for tactical advantage.
A long answer, but the issue deserves requires a level of engagement I think. However, having said that, I'm not sure there's much more milage in this beyond my repeating myself ad nauseum.
btw I should like to know of anything you can provide that substantiates what you've said about Human Rights Watch. In any case, you shouldn't make the error, as "Lenin" did before, of implying my case against Hizbollah's actions rests solely on that source.
Before I say anything more I should clear several things up. I'm not a member of the SWP, or even a marxist in any meaningful sense. I certainly don't share Lenin's politics, even if we agree on some issues (and disagree violently on others). I certainly don't believe that "I must show solidarity with whoever fights the imperialists" (I found that exact reflex disgusting when it was applied in the Balkans wars).
"apologists for Israeli state terror use it all the time."
Well they do, but its a lie - if possibly a lie that much of Israel does genuinely seem to believe (a highly militaristic state with a victim complex - what a homeland they've built themselves). But Israel's hardly unique - pretty much every act of military aggression is justified (even Hitler) with some attempt to reposition it as a defensive act. Clearly there's some reason why states do this - some people at least believe there is a moral difference between the defensive and the aggressive act.
But ok let me rephrase my original point. Hezbollah's attacks were made in response to the continuing attacks by Israel on civillians. There is a not so subtle difference between firing rockets while hostilities are ongoing, and vengeance to a single act of terror. You must at least see there is a difference. If I blow your house up, after you blew mine up - that's vengeance. If I blow your house up, during a period where you are destroying my neighbourhood, that's something else.
"Your rephrasing of point 2 above is just sophistry I'm afraid."
No need to be frightened, but you're wrong. Its not sophistry. You've removed the context in which Hezbollah's acts took place. I think most people would see a difference between Hezbollah firing missiles at Israel for the sheer hell of it, and firing missiles into Israel during a sustained bombardment of Lebannon by Israel. That's not sophistry.
"There are, for both sides, justifiable and unjustifiable acts of violence whoever started the conflict in question"
Well yes, but is it really as black and white as that? A sheer line seperating the justifiable from the unjustifiable? Can one act be less justifiable than another? Can context change things?
"Hezbollah's terrorism was at least proportional"?!?"
Perhaps proportional was the wrong word, in that it has other meanings. Perhaps correlated would be better. Israel was the state who defined the level of violence. At no point did Hezbollah's violence exceed Israel's. The violence by Hezbollah was not disproportionate in response to the violence (by Israel) that preceeded it. And Israel was the actor who chose to turn this into a war against civilians.
"Good grief, the whole point about terrorism is that its *not* proportional, and nor is it in any way a justifiable method of warfighting."
It really depends upon your perspective don't you think. If you're fighting a war of survival (hypothetically), then I rather suspect even you would see certain methods as justified (so long as they stood even a small chance of being effective). However as I've stated above, the use of rockets was proportionate to the level of violence being used by Israel. So by your definition this wasn't terrorism.
"This is irrelevant. We judge actions by moral standards like international law, not the lowest common denominator set by historic behaviour."
International law is not a moral standard.
Anyway. First of all, I'm not talking about historic behaviour. I doubt that any modern state if attacked in the way that Lebanon was attacked by Israel, would respond any differently (particularly if it might help stop the bombings). That doesn't affect the morality of the situation, but you are holding them to a standard that I doubt any state could achieve.
My point is really a tactical one, however (and I should have flagged it as such). If you are going to condemn Hezbollah for attacks on civilians, then make sure you point out that you're holding them to a standard that no state has ever achieved. Otherwise, you're playing into the hands of Little Green Soccer Balls, Oliver Kamm, etc (not to mention Israel). And the reason for this is purely and simply because the propoganda is so one sided in the west.
"Yes they did, and quite understandably so. But that's for them, in their situation and in their political context."
Well it is, but it was also the context in which Hezbollah was operating. To some degree Hezbollah (like any government, even dictatorships) has to respond to the will of the people in Lebanon. Hezbollah was not a lone operator, any more than the IDF was.
"Look, as a British person, saying you support Hizbollah is just empty gesture politics"
Well no, first and foremost its true. I do. Not as a political gesture, but simply as a human being. You could make the same argument about a British ex-pat who supports Man City. Does it change anything? No. Does that make it any less real? Of course not.
Is there a political effect in westerners supporting Hezbollah? Well a small one, otherwise why would Israel be so obsessed with garnering as much support for itself, and demonising those who support its enemies? The bias of the media is in part because they think that there is no support for Hezbollah, whereas there is for Israel. So perception matters at least a little bit.
"And in that context, saying you support murderers - apart from the straightforward immorality of it - is the political equivalent of tourette's."
No, saying that one supports an organisation which has been designated as evil, is the political equivalent of tourettes. Just as supporting the Palestinians used to be the political equivalent of tourettes. If supporting murderers was tourettes, then NuLab would be history (and there's more blood on Tony's hands). You're confusing morality with tactics.
"Is it not absolutely stark-staringly obvious that prolaiming your support for people who have (as you say yourself) committed acts of terrorism is a pretty sure fire way of losing a political debate in this country?"
Then why do Israel keep winning the political debate in this country (and they have - look at all the members of the Labour Friends of Israel - Tony Blair's on the board of the Jewish Land trust for god's sakes). Tactically saying that you support Hezbollah in the present political climate is probably not the way to win the debate - I agree. But this is an argument about tactics, not morality; and its really not a universal.
"But none of that means that people in this country aren't right to be appalled by the rocket attacks on civilian parts of northern Israel and highly suspicious of anyone who sings the praises of those responsible or tries to justify such atrocities with talk of "proportionate terrorism".
Bollocks. Change the country, the context and lots of people would be justifying retaliation of exactly that sort. Hell - there were plenty of people in this country who seemed to think America had a right to bomb the hell out of Iraq, if they were responsible for 9/11 (and that would have been a worse category of crime, for what its worth).
"btw I should like to know of anything you can provide that substantiates what you've said about Human Rights Watch. In any case, you shouldn't make the error, as "Lenin" did before, of implying my case against Hizbollah's actions rests solely on that source."
I thought I carefully stated that I wasn't making Lenin's error.
I can't prove anything about HRW (though given time I might be able to make a good case I guess, but who has that much time), just based upon observation over the years. I just find that its generally a good idea to check any information put out by HRW, rather than taking it as read. I've seen particular problems in their reports on the ex-Soviet Republics and in S. America - which might have something to do with the biases of some of their luminaries, or simply reflect the fact they are a political organisation (and as such have to placate powerful people, if they wish to push their particular agendas).
And obviously they're much better than the New York Times, or something.
Cian - thanks for your reply. Now please don't be offended if this is my last response, but as you've seen, I've written a great deal about this by now here and at Lenin's Tomb, and I think my position's clear. I will try and address what you say here, but am conscious that we're now going round in circles and that this is getting highly repetitive. I'll read with interest any response you give but draw a line under it now for my part. Hope that's ok.
1/ re.HRW - evidence is kind of important, y'know? I mean if people don't call you on something and go away thinking there's something to what you've said then you've basically misled them, haven't you? Intentionally or not. Well if you find something let me know but as it is, I'm glad I asked.
2/ yes, there's a difference in terms of context between Israel's attacks on civilians and Hizbollah's. e.g. Hizbollah held off for a couple of days, and apparently could've hit Tel Aviv. But there's a difference between there being (a) a difference in context and (b) one being right and the other wrong, isn't there?
3/ moral standards are universal or they're meaningless. So they're not set by Israel, and then anything you do that's less bad is ok. Hence I'm afraid what you said was sophistry, or just misconceived. So Israel started it. Mothers of errant children everywhere know that "he started it" is the lamest excuse in the book. But Israeli government spokesmen are apparently trained to repeat it, and that should tell you something.
4/ I'm sure you know the difference between teleological and ontological morality. Well actually we're both teleologists. Its just that being a teleologist doesn't mean you dispense with universal standards like law or common morality altogether. Teleologists can build an ability to take account of circumstances into those standards whilst retaining certain red lines. International law does that very well indeed, and it does not allow - as far as I'm aware - for the killing of innocent people.
5/ "International law is not a moral standard"
its hard to argue with bald assertion, but if you mean that its a tool created by the powerful, then on one level your partially right, but focusing on that one dimension doesn't excuse us from thinking about other significant considerations. Yes its in part created by the powerful, and as such it has in part been created to suit their own interests. But assuming that the powerful had (a) total ownership of the drafting process and (b) the ability to present and establish some ludicrously skewed system of laws and just get away with it, is taking it a step further. Actually, despite the input of powerful states, and despite many flaws, international law is a pretty decent and workable standard of morality. Furthermore, the alternative to an agreed international standard is that everyone gets to decide their own standards at any given time - and who will that suit do you think? And we therefore arrive at the basic truth that at their best, laws protect the weak from the powerful. If you don't believe that, or don't think that's true of international law, just ask John Bolton.
If international law's unsatisfactory then by all means try to change it. But that doesn't mean you dispense with it in the meantime. Anarchy only suits those with power to impose their will on others. And the only alternative to anarchy is universally agreed standards of conduct, which may be inaequate, but at least can be improved, and are far better than the alternative.
6/ "otherwise why would Israel be so obsessed with garnering as much support for itself, and demonising those who support its enemies"
Israel wants to obscure the facts because if people in Britain and the US understood the truth then Israel's welfare line would be cut off and it'd be forced to grow up and treat its neighbours like human beings. I'm sure Israel would be absolutely delighted to know that the campain against UK support for its policies contains people who sing the praises of Hizbollah. which leads me on to....
7/ propaganda. Yes there's been a lot of propaganda. There's also such a thing as objective truth. And the objective truth is that Hizbollah fired rockets into civilian areas. If people don't like that its not because they're dupes - whatever other misconceptions they might have about Hizbollah. Most people aren't experts on the workings of al-qaeda, and many think they attack us "cuz they hate freedum" but no-one's wrong to be disgusted by 9/11 are they?
No one in this discussion has told me anything I didn't already know about Hizbollah. Blaming propaganda or people misunderstanding the nature of Hizbollah or it being "designated as evil" is a pure 100% cop-out. Hizbollah killed unarmend civilians. Its wrong to kill unarmed civilians.
8/ "If supporting murderers was tourettes, then NuLab would be history (and there's more blood on Tony's hands). You're confusing morality with tactics."
I almost don't know what to say to this. So if many people don't realise that the government is guilty of murder that means they can't ever make a judgement on what's murder and what isn't?
8/ "Bollocks. Change the country, the context and lots of people would be justifying retaliation of exactly that sort. Hell - there were plenty of people in this country who seemed to think America had a right to bomb the hell out of Iraq, if they were responsible for 9/11 (and that would have been a worse category of crime, for what its worth)."
yes, it would have been a worse category of crime. They'd've been wrong. So I'm not sure I see you point
Ok, Cian. I'm afraid I'm done on this one. Feel free to finish off. I'd be genuinely pleased to see your contributions on other posts here, but I think we've taken this particular one as far as it can go.
That's fine. However a point that I think I forgot to make, and which in some ways is the most important point.
Israel began the conflict by bombing civilians, agreed?
At that point Hezbollah had two options. They could do nothing, or they could fire semi guided rockets into Israel in response.
If they did nothing, what do you think would have happened? Would Israel have stopped bombing by now? Maybe yes, maybe not.
What was the response to Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel (8) ? Well it made Israel pay a price for its bombing of Lebanon, that it would otherwise not have had to pay. Secondly it put domestic pressure on the IDF, such that they had to enter Lebanon and search for rocket launchers. Once they entered Lebanon, Hezbollah could engage them (and so defeat Israel - and they did, btw, defeat Israel. If the war had continued, Israeli soldiers would have been screwed logistically), and so try to end the war.
In addition, from the outset Hezbollah made it clear that their rockets would only continue to be fired so long as the Israelis continued to bomb Lebanon. So this meant that there was a pressure to end in the war in Israel, that would otherwise not have been there (economic pressure, and domestic pressure).
So firing the rockets was important strategically, there were not simply about punishing civilians, agreed?
Right, so these are the choices available to Hezbollah:
1) Do nothing, Israel pounds Lebanon into the dust and kills lots and lots of Lebanese civilians.
2) Do something, kill some Israeli civilians, but potentially save some Lebanese civilians by either ending the war sooner, or changing the war so that it becomes about soldiers.
Now that's a pretty tought moral conundrum. Which civilians are more important? From a strictly numbers point of view, killing some Israeli civilians will probably save more Lebanese lives if the war ends sooner (simply because Israel is better at killing civilians).
From a moral point of view, why should Hezbollah care equally about Israeli civilians in a defensive war? Particularly when Israel can end the war at any point?
(*) To date we've discusse the use or rockets as if they were all aimed at civilian targets, but of course many of them were aimed at military targets (some of the others were aimed at Haifa port, and seem to hae shut it down for the duration of the war). There's plenty of evidence for this. Firstly the drones that Hezbollah sent over, which were obviously scoping military targets (I say obvious, because you don't need drones to find out where civilians live in Israel). Secondly, there have been some reports that Hezbollah's initial targets were Israel's military headquarters (which is apparently buried in a hill, NORAD style). Thirdly, there's no way that Hezbollah would target Arab Israelis deliberately, so I think we can safely assume those rockets were meant for military installations. Certainly this seems to be the opinion of many of the Arab Israelis who lived in those areas. So many civilians were not targeted, but effectively caught in the cross fire. My argument doesn't rely on that, simply making the point.
1) eh? It was a friendly warning, completely off topic (which is why I flagged it as such). Nothing to do with the present argument. Not sure how clearer I could have made it. I have been caught in the past taking HRW reports as gospel, which is why I always try and check them against other sources. I can only speculate as to why they're not 100% reliable. If you think otherwise, fine.
2) NO the difference is that Hezbollah was responding to Israeli attacks on civilians. Israel started the attacks on civilians and made it a war where civilians were targeted. Even if you think both sides were wrong, surely you can say that there are gradations of wrongness here? Currently your position is extraordinarily black and white.
3) I have no idea what your point is here. Mothers and fathers know that "he started it" is the lamest excuse, because its rarely true (I'm guessing you don't have kids) and even if it is, its rarely relevant (he stole my crayon so I hit him). On the other hand I've yet to meet a parent who would be as hard on their kid if they saw the other kid hit them first.
Israeli spokesmen are trained to repeat it because it works. People generally feel acts of warfare are justified if they were provoked by something equivalent. Tactically its effective. Morally its debatable (trust me, I've been trapped in a room with moral philosophers who did just that).
4) I'm sure you know the difference between teleological and ontological morality. Well actually we're both teleologists. Its just that being a teleologist doesn't mean you dispense with universal standards like law or common morality altogether. Teleologists can build an ability to take account of circumstances into those standards whilst retaining certain red lines. International law does that very well indeed, and it does not allow - as far as I'm aware - for the killing of innocent people.
5) No, its simply a statement of fact. International law is not, and was not intended to be, a moral standard. Law is not a moral standard, but a set of codes (created by the powerful) which are intended to enforce certain kinds of behaviours. The reason for the creation of those laws may be moral, they may not be. But that's a seperate matter (and I'm really not splitting hairs here. I think its really dangerous when people think of laws as moral codes - and its surprisingly common).
The other aspect to law, btw, is access to it and enforcement of those laws. And there international law is completely skewed. International law is enforced by powerful states. Powerful states are free to totally ignore it, which they frequently do. And powerful states often use international law (or there interpretation of it) selectively, in order to punish states they don't like. Whereas weak states don't really have access to it (the most notorious example being Nicaragua of course). And most states do get to decide their own standards at any given time. At best international law is a fig-leaf for states that care about international opinion (though of course international opinion is driven more strongly by individuals personal moral standards, rather than by standards of international law), often it is completely ignored.
6) "I'm sure Israel would be absolutely delighted to know that the campain against UK support for its policies contains people who sing the praises of Hizbollah. which leads me on to...."
This is a point about tactics. Israel has behaved throughout far worse than Hezbollah agreed. Yet Israel is delighted that plenty of people sing the praises of Israel. Therefore people do not judge by "objective" standards of morality, by by their perceptions of the two actors. In the UK, Hezbollah is largely seen as a terrorist organisation, whereas Israel is seen as a state surrounded by hostile arabs. Support of one is seen as defending Israel's right to exist, or some such. Supporting the other is seen as supporting terrorism. Even if Hezbollah had managed to limit its attacks to military targets, do you really think there would have been a significant shift in perspective? What matters here tactically, is perception.
7/ "propaganda. Yes there's been a lot of propaganda. There's also such a thing as objective truth. And the objective truth is that Hizbollah fired rockets into civilian areas."
Yes, but most people think Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. Most people do not think the IDF is a terrorist organisation. And I've had a number of conversations where people were more appaled by Hezbollah's attacks, than Israels. Now make sense of that, if "objective truth" matters in terms of what people think? The US inflicted far more damage on Baghdad during Gulf War II, yet I've met supporters of the war who think that was fine, while being disgusted with Hezbollah.
"Most people aren't experts on the workings of al-qaeda, and many think they attack us "cuz they hate freedum" but no-one's wrong to be disgusted by 9/11 are they?"
No, but the motives of Al-Quaeda are irrelivant to the crime. What if 9/11 had been revenge for a US attack that had killed an equal number of people? They might have been disgusted by it (though I suspect less would have been), but a lot of people would have thought that the US brought it upon itself.
"Its wrong to kill unarmed civilians."
That's your opinion. Don't think for a moment that everyone thinks that way, or even that a majority do. And there are other moral positions, which are equally sustainable.
8/ "I almost don't know what to say to this. So if many people don't realise that the government is guilty of murder that means they can't ever make a judgement on what's murder and what isn't?"
Um no, not entirely sure how you came to that interpretation.
People know exactly what Blair is responsible for. However they don't see it as murder. Defining something as murder is interpretation (e.g. If I kill somebody, that can be established as an objective fact. However was it murder? That can never be established definitively). People come to their own conclusions about what is justified, and what isn't. And they will have their own criteria, which are likely to be very different from yourse. You think that Hezbollah commited murder, and presumably that Blair also did. However, that's still your own interpretation. You could even be right, but politically it doesn't matter unless a majority of people agree with your interpretation. And that's what we're talking about here, politics.
8/ "yes, it would have been a worse category of crime. They'd've been wrong. So I'm not sure I see you point"
That I'm not sure that most people's opinions matter in the way that you want them to. People come to their decisions about right and wrong based on emotion, their understanding (usually wrong) of context, who they identify with and so forth. People may be appaled by the rocket attacks on Israel (I'm not sure btw that that's true, but no matter) - but that doesn't mean they're right to do so (unless you mean in the trivial sense that they're right because they agree with you). THeir reasons for being appaled could range from simple racism, to a total misunderstanding of the situation.
ok, Cian. We've both said our bit so I'm sure people reading this can look at how the debate panned out and make up their own minds.
If anyone wants to read anything further on this I suggest this by the excellent Jonathan Cook, which challenges the popular perception of what Hizbollah have been doing:
http://www.jkcook.net/Articles2/0272.htm#Top
this by Human Rights Watch, also dealing with Hizbollah's recent conduct
http://hrw.org/english/docs/ 2006...no13921_txt.htm
and these two give some background on Hizbollah
http://bostonreview.net/BR30.2/cobban.html
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17060
unless, Cian, you can recommend anything else?
The two background articles are very good from what I remember of them. Jonathon Cook's piece does indeed raise important questions.
Having read the HRW piece
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/05/lebano13921.htm (your link above would't work)
Mostly I agree with it, though I'm not sure how they can be so sure that Hezbollah was deliberately targeting a hospital, given nobody seems to know how accurate those rockets actually are.
However:
"Hezbollah claims that some of its attacks are aimed at military bases inside Israel, which are legitimate targets. But most of the attacks appear to have been directed at civilian areas and have hit pedestrians, hospitals, schools, homes and businesses. "
How have they verified this? What are their sources (I don't consider the Israeli government, or military, at all reliable - particularly after all the ludicrous lies in the recent conflict)? Do they know where all the rockets hit? Given that many Israeli military bases/institution's locations are classified, how can they be so certain what the target was? And they imply that Hezbollah was deliberately targetting Arab civilians, which is ludicrous. So good on the details, weak on the general case. Hey, that's HRW for you.
Here's HRW's methodology from their recent report on Israeli war crimes
http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/3.htm#_Toc142299221
don't see much to object with there.
My understanding is that HRW will produce a more comprehensive report of Hizbollah's actions presently, as will Amnesty, which today joined HRW in accusing Israel of war crimes.
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/lbn-230806-feature-eng
It'll be interesting to see what the two groups have to say in their detailed analysis of Hizbollah's actions. Although that said, I'm rather more interested in what they say about what Israel's done since (a) that's what I share responsibility for as a UK citizen, and (b) the seriousness of Israeli crimes was of a completely different order of magnitude.
Amnesty has some reports which are OK.
http://amnestylebanonisrael.blogspot.com/
Straight reporting of what they saw and could verify, with no speculation. As of yet no specific condemnation of Hezbollah, but I'm told this is coming.
I think the two reports kind of illustrate their different styles. Amnesty tends to limit their remit to reporting human rights abuses they have been able to verify (or if unable to verify them, they will flag this). HRW's reports tend to include a framework that contextualises the events, and can be over reliant upon reports of abuses which they haven't verified (or at least don't explain how these have been verified, or what the source was).
By the way, killing civilians accidentally (collateral damage) when attempting to destroy military targets is not generally considered a war crime in international law - regardless of the morality of it. Its pretty fuzzy, as aiming at military targets when you knew you will also kill civilians is a war crime. Which in practice makes it a crime of intent (did you know that there were civilians there) and so open to endless reinterpretation.
"Here's HRW's methodology from their recent report on Israeli war crimes
http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/3.htm#_Toc142299221"
I didn't really have the same questions about their methodology for that report, as it seemed a lot more carefully researched when I read the reports that preceeded it (their study of Qana was extremely rigorous). Whereas the report on Hizbollah crimes seems sloppy. Hopefully a future report will address that. Granted, I'm a bit of a methodology geek, which probably comes from working in a university, so my position might be a little extreme here...
"(a) that's what I share responsibility for as a UK citizen, and (b) the seriousness of Israeli crimes was of a completely different order of magnitude."
In that we are in total agreement.
My understanding was that both groups have pretty strict formal methods of working and that any small variation in methodologies between individual reports is necessitated by circumstance and must still adhere to the overall framework set by the organisation.
Anyway, as I say, we'll see what the full reports on Hizbollah look like when they come out.
Just to mention that when, in that interview, Mr Galloway states:
No, oh, please! Have a slightly longer memory than 4 weeks. I'm talking about the thousands of prisoners taken during the Israeli occupation, illegal occupation of South Lebanon. These are the prisoners that have to be released in exchange of the Israeli soldiers that were captured in the beginning of this wave of the crisis.
- that he's either talking nonsense, or he knows something that the BBC, and apparently Hezbollah, don't know.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5211930.stm
Thaks, Lopakhin. Yes, I noticed that too.
Looking at it kindly, Galloway probably just got overheated and muddled up facts that he knows very well - but if you base your act on rhetoric, combativeness etc then the danger is that you'll slip up like that.
No doubt had he calmed down he'd instead have said that Israel holds thousands of Palestinians hostage (or "under arrest" as Tel Aviv would have it) and many Lebanese prisoners as well. Israel kidnaps on a scale that Hamas and Hizbullah couldn't imagine, as both Amnesty and B'Tselem point out. It can hardly bleat about "kidnapping" and expect to be taken seriously by anyone who knows the facts.
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/isr-action-detention
http://www.btselem.org/english/Administrative_Detention/Index.asp
So the point is basically a sound one, but as ever Galloway's overblown style impairs his ability to make it. Some people find his combative style satisfying, but that's just lazy. The left should demand better of its self-appointed spokesmen. If only there was some way we could all sack him.
He could be referring to some of the Lebanese prisoners that were taken by Israel during the occupation whose fate remains unknown, but are probably dead. Israel refuses to say what happened to them, or release the bodies (if they have them). Then again he could be confused, or exagerating. Hard to know.
Post a Comment
<< Home