“Proportional to What?” The Economist. December 30, 2008.
An Annotation
In the context of the latest episode of violence in Gaza, renewed debates about the use of proportional force in war have resurfaced. According to just war theory, the proportional use of force must be assessed in determining whether to go to war, as well as in regulating conduct throughout the entire conflict. Given the rising number of casualties and immense violence and destruction that have occurred, these questions maintain their salience and continue to provoke complex debate about the protection of human rights for all in the midst of armed conflict.
“Proportionality in jus ad bellum and jus in bello are hard to separate: indiscriminate killing will color the view of whether a war is justified; and even proportionate actions in battle will be denounced if the war is deemed unjust…In the Israeli-Palestinian context, arguments about legality fast turn into ones about history.”
For many, debates over proportionality raise significant questions about the justification and legitimacy of war. However, escalating death tolls in Gaza highlight the fact that discussions can no longer afford to merely focus on proportionality in war. Instead, as the conflict in Gaza has illustrated, the need for more adamant adherence to human rights conventions is necessary. According to the article, the need to uphold and preserve the 1949 Geneva Conventions is of particular importance. Moreover, in this most recent renewal of violence in Gaza concerns over proportionality may become laden with political and historical controversies, thereby further obscuring the importance of much needed human rights considerations. To complicate matters further, this conflict begs several other difficult questions—the drawing of distinction between civilian and soldier, the role of state and non-state actors, and the consequences of unequal capabilities in war making—making international legal interpretation confusing and underscoring the need for a broad human rights framework to dictate policy.
These issues and others are considered in this month’s Roundtable.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Editor's Introduction - February 2009
Protecting Human Rights in Conflict
by Clair Apodaca, Florida International University
"It is difficult to get parties to a conflict to see the benefits of respecting human rights and humanitarian law principles while in the heat of battle. This is precisely why the international community needs to step in. The international community should demand that both principles of discrimination and proportionality be respected."
The Just War Theory of Jus in Bello is the international community’s attempt to ensure respect for human rights and human welfare during armed conflicts. The principle of proportionality and the obligation to distinguish between combatants and civilians in attacks are two related notions that are fundamental to the protection of human rights during conflict. The principle of proportionality limits the amount of violence and destruction that is morally permissible. By contrast, the principle of discrimination (or distinction) discriminates between legitimate targets, such as soldiers and weapons depots, and illegitimate targets, specifically noncombatants such as civilian populations and their property.
The principle of discrimination protects civilians from indiscriminate, battle-related carnage. Governments cannot indiscriminately drop bombs in heavily populated areas on hopes of destroying combatant targets. Michael Walzer, in his classic Just and Unjust Wars (1977), asserts that the government maintains the responsibility to determine who is a combatant and who is not before it employs force. The fact that members of Hamas do not necessarily wear uniforms or visibly carry guns does not relieve Israel from its obligations under Just War Theory, particularly with regards to the principle of discrimination. There are legitimate and illegitimate military targets in any conflict. The principle of discrimination permits, as an unavoidable military necessity, a country to kill hostile combatants who are participants in the conflict. But this same principle protects non-combatants from being directly targeted with deliberate intent. Israel’s response to the provocative, yet generally unsuccessful, acts of overt, calculated violence by Hamas violates the principle of discrimination. Israel’s retaliatory attacks have led to civilian casualties with, in fact, very few Hamas fatalities. To date, over 1100 Gaza civilians have been killed (more than a third of them children) and many more have been injured by Israel’s disportional response to Hamas’ confrontational actions. Under no condition is the killing of children an acceptable or regrettable form of collateral damage justifiable on the grounds of an anticipated military advantage. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine how the casualty count could include so many children unless non-discrimination between combatants and civilians was part of Israel’s recent military strategy.
As for the principle of proportionality, it attempts to restrict both the excessive use of force and the gratuitous recourse to violence against civilian populations. It does not mean, however, that the number of civilian casualties must be approximately equal on both sides. Proportionality means that the injury suffered by the civilian population must be relative to the military advantage sought for through military action. Proportionality is thus designed to rein in retributional violence that a sense of revenge or retaliation in conflict often provokes. As Jason Litwack explains, “the principle of proportionality has long been firmly established in humanitarian law as it is inherent in principles of necessity and humanity which form the basis of humanitarian law. The prohibition of unnecessary suffering (Article 23(c) of Hague Convention IV of 1907) was the first codification of the principle of proportionality which had, however, already been accepted in international customary law. Today it has found broad recognition in the new rules for victims of armed conflicts in Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Red Cross Convention of 1949.” Again, proportionality in Jus in Bello prohibits the use of excessive force. Thomas Hurka argues that even acts of self-defense are wrong if harm caused by the retaliatory attack is out of proportion to the aggressive act. In this context, the bombing of the UN Relief and Works Agency warehouse (which under international humanitarian law enjoys immunity from attack), located in the heavily populated Gaza Strip, with white phosphorus shells is a clear violation of the principle of proportionality. Not only did the attack of January 15, 2009 violate the right of the civilian population to humanitarian aid, but the use of phosphorus shells is illegal in civilian areas because such bombs cause extremely painful (and often indiscriminate) injuries that are difficult to treat. White phosphorus sticks to the skin and burns to the bone. In addition, white phosphorus fires can not be put out with water or traditional fire extinguishers, thus rendering the risk of fire propagation in densely populated areas very high.
It is difficult to get parties to a conflict to see the benefits of respecting human rights and humanitarian law principles while in the heat of battle. This is precisely why the international community needs to step in. The international community should demand that both principles of discrimination and proportionality be respected. But more than demands for the respect of the Jus in Bello, specific actions by the international community are required. The West, particularly the United States, can, and in fact ought to, suspend transfers of cash, weapons, or ammunition to Israel while it is using those to violate the basic rights of the people of Gaza. Likewise, countries that are sympathetic to the plight of the citizens of Gaza should use their influence to contain the aggressive actions of Hamas since, in the end, such acts and hostilities towards Israel put Gaza’s population at risk for further human rights violations, injuries and death. The international community, under the authority of the United Nations, needs to establish a committee to investigate the many reports of human rights violations, the targeting of civilian populations, and other violations of international humanitarian law by both sides of the conflict. Israel, a prominent military power, has the sophisticated technologies to track down Hamas’ rocket launchers and destroy them with few civilian casualties. By targeting civilians and humanitarian aid, Israel ends up boosting Gaza’s population’s loyalty and support for Hamas. By provoking Israel into using indiscriminate and disproportionate military violence, Hamas hopes to garner increasing support from Palestinians but, in so doing, condemns them to be victims of violence and human rights exactions. Following the principles of discrimination and proportionality of the Jus in Bello are absolute preconditions (to be recognized by all) for any protection of the civilian populations, including children, in conflicts such as the present one between Israel and Hamas.
Stopping the Killing and/or Stopping Human Rights Violations
by Edward Friedman, University of Wisconsin-Madison
"It is not obvious that singularly emphasizing a human rights approach to the conflict brings the day of peace closer. The big issue is a political compromise so people can live in peace with each other. It is not the human rights or wrongs of some battle that should be decisive."
The relationship between promoting human rights and stopping wars can be perplexing. The 19th century origins of the Geneva Convention and the International Commissions of the Red Cross (ICRC) are warnings about the moral danger, ambiguities, or tensions of bringing war within the arena of human rights considerations. Human rights and war can be a toxic cocktail. One should not want to make war more likely or legitimate or deadly by seeming to say that the killing machine on one side or the other is acting humanely, as if that makes war okay. War is hell.
A central reason why European governments responded positively to requests first to treat the wounded in war well and then also to treat prisoners of war “humanely” was because the power-holders feared that war was becoming so cruel, devastating and monstrous that citizens might reject war as a policy option.
It is also a serious question whether the ICRC, during the war to defeat Nazi expansionism, helped perpetuate the Nazi extermination machine by visiting POW camps but staying publicly silent about the mass murders being carried out by the Nazi killing machine. A singular focus on human rights which is not on the side of stopping the sources of the killing may not produce advances for humanity.
It is even dangerous to respond too quickly to tales of inhumanity. Claims of atrocities, as with the English portrayal of Germany under Wilhelm during the First World War, were part of a British propaganda campaign to bring Washington into the war on London’s side. It is quite easy to imagine better consequences for all sides had Americans not been moved by tales of German atrocities and had America instead remained neutral in the European war.
Opposition even to the worst of war atrocities should not be one-dimensional. The atomic bombings of the urban centers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Pacific War against Imperial Japan’s militaristic aggressions were, to me, war crimes. The bombs indiscriminately killed non-combatant civilians. Yet those bombs saved the lives of at least half a million non-Japanese Asians who were dying in huge numbers in Japanese colonies and who would have kept on dying in increasing numbers if the war had been prolonged and not suddenly ended. The American war crimes sped the end of the killing of huge numbers of innocents. Tragically, there are worse things than war crimes.
In the Middle East, only a negotiated peace between Israelis and Palestinians can stop the killings so that the people of both nations can live normal lives. It is not easy to predict the future consequences of the very, very strong and murderous Israeli response at the end of 2008 to Hamas’ indiscriminate shelling of civilian Israeli populations, clearly a war crime. It is not obvious that singularly emphasizing a human rights approach to the conflict brings the day of peace closer. The big issue is a political compromise so people can live in peace with each other. It is not the human rights or wrongs of some battle that should be decisive.
It is well-recognized that in a human rights effort to protect refugees, the well-meaning can unintentionally succor a war faction and permit it subsequently to continue its killing, often ethnic-cleansing. Since the Arabs treated the U.N. creation of a Jewish homeland as a catastrophe and a pretext for war and since Israeli forces seized success in that war as an opportunity to force Palestinians to flee, Gaza has been just such a refugee camp, eventually led by non-conciliationist Hamas killers of Jews. Does the 2008-2009 war with Hamas make it more or less likely that Hamas will be able to compromise for peace? That should be the goal. Peace and reconciliation are the only way to extinguish the long-lingering and explosive causes of endless abuses of human rights in that region.
Edward Friedman is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He is a long time member of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights in China. In the 1980s he was on the staff of the Foreign Affairs Committee where the issues he worked on included human rights, death squads, arms embargoes, and peaceful and democratic reconciliation. At Wisconsin, he introduced courses on "The Politics of Human Rights" and "The Politics of Freedom." His most recent book is "Political Transitions in Dominant Party Systems."
Proportional to Life...
by Emma Gilligan, University of Connecticut
"The question that should ultimately sit at the foreground of this debate on proportionality is to what degree this issue should be considered in light of international humanitarian law."
Proportional to Life…
by Emma Gilligan
The Economist piece entitled “Proportional to what?” poses a dangerous question. The notion, as the article suggests, that proportionality in war is a “slippery idea” or that the facts are “nebulous” is the work of either an intentionally provocative or idly cynical author. Whatever the motivation for the words, it is precisely the dismissive tone embodied in such statements that has contributed to and defined the attitude more recently of larger states, like Israel and Russia, to issues of accountability for the death of civilians.
Israel can invoke “collateral damage” in its depiction of events in Gaza, as it has done. And in doing so, it merely joins an odious chorus that employs this crude euphemism in its defense. The first struggle that has been lost in asymmetrical wars like Israel versus Palestine is the semantic one. At the moment when “collateral damage” was introduced into the discourse of war, we lost a battle for the recognition of the civilian as a human entity. The distinction between human beings and legitimate targets of war converged to become almost mutable identities. Moreover, if we can easily claim that those who commit racial crimes dehumanize their subject, we too should look at the ways in which we characterize the victims of our own wars.
There is no doubt that the bombing of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency warehouse with white phosphorus shells and the appalling incident in the eastern Gaza suburb of Zeitoum were disproportionate attacks. The order handed down to Israeli troops in the Givati Shaked Battalion was “Fire on anything that moves in Zeitoum.”
Before discussing proportionality, however, we should address the issue of asymmetrical warfare. Recent conflicts, and in particular counter-terrorist operations, have been crudely asymmetrical. Large states with powerful weaponry lead attacks from the air, with rocket strikes and incendiary bombs. To name just two instances in the past decade, Russia versus Chechnya, Israel against Lebanon and now, Israel against Palestine. The question that should ultimately sit at the foreground of this debate on proportionality is to what degree this issue should be considered in light of international humanitarian law. What is the responsibility of larger states employing mass weaponry on smaller enemies who have very little real chance of defending themselves or their civilian populations?
Disproportion does not only take place in times of war. The notion of proportionality has a historical memory in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that most are aware of. The wall built along the Gaza strip is, as Roger Cohen wrote, a denial of the reality over the border. But it is one of a series of disproportionate policies imposed on Palestine over a long period of time to inhibit their movement and devalue their national self-worth. The recent conflict has only taken this humiliation further. Hamas is no doubt to blame for the escalating violence with its Qassam rockets on Israeli cities, but the civilians of Gaza are not to be bombed into submission nor are people to be deprived of food, water, and medicine. Most profoundly, as the case with Chechens in Grozny, they are not to be denied a state of emergency and time for flight. Borders should always be opened to allow for flight. And the wounded and dead should be evacuated. Those caught in Grozny over the winter of 1994-1995 are too stark a reminder of the low priority states often give to citizens caught in war.
The question posed by The Economist should not therefore be “proportional to what?” A better question to pose would be “responsible to whom?”
After completing her doctoral studies in Russian history at the University of Melbourne, Australia, Emma Gilligan was a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of History at the University of Chicago from 2003-2006. During this time, she completed her book Defending Human Rights in Russia; Sergei Kovalyov Dissident and Human Rights Commisioner, 1969-96 (Routledge, 2004). This book traces the evolution of the Soviet human rights movement from the 1960s in Moscow to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. It analyzes, in particular, the rise of Sergei Kovalyov, Russia's first human rights commissioner under the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and the impact of former Soviet dissidents on the discourse of human rights in the post-Soviet era. Her second book, War Crimes in Chechnya (Princeton University Press, forthcoming 2008) examines the war crimes committed by Russian soldiers against the civilian population of Chechnya. The study places the conflict in Chechnya within the international discourse on humanitarian intervention in the 1990s and the rise of nationalism in Russia. Emma Gilligan is the author of articles for the Chicago Tribune, ‘Why there is no Peace in Chechnya,’ 2005 and ‘US Loses High Ground on Human Rights,’ 2006 and the International Herald Tribune. She is a member of the Gladstein Committee for Human Rights and a joint hire with the Human Rights Institute. She teaches courses on the history of human rights and genocide after the Second World War.
Proportionality and Unjust Wars
by Sarah Stanlick, Harvard University
"Negating the inhumane elements of war does not mean that war is ever perfect or preferable. But it does ensure that the innocent are protected, and the human rights of combatants and non-combatants alike are sacrosanct despite the chaos."
As violence rages in the Middle East, policymakers, academics, and the public alike have been embroiled in debate over the proportional use of force. As The Economist article points out, historical grievances leave both Israelis and Palestinians with compelling arguments for defense and resistance. However, at this point, the cycle of violence has perpetuated blame that goes beyond a simple tally sheet. World leaders remain divided on the rights and wrongs of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but human rights groups internationally are crying out for Israel and Hamas to end attacks that “do not discriminate between civilians and military targets.” While there is much debate over the use of rocket attacks to eliminate targets where aggressors have taken refuge, there are clear human rights violations that must be addressed. Unfortunately, what is being experienced now is not a mindful use of force meant to achieve peace, but a dizzying amount of force and human rights abuses that amount to an unjust war.
When discussing proportionality, oftentimes the debate is centered too literally on casualty tallies rather than the contextual wrongs of decisions like the one that was made to block off aid to Gaza. What happens when the means to survive are denied to a population? Is this not as bad as brute force, as it ensures suffering and starvation? Essentially, blocking off the aid needed to keep civilians healthy in light of hospitals and infrastructure being destroyed is a death sentence. One must take into account that despite questions about Hamas’ motives (especially in light of the rockets that were created during the ceasefire period), they gained power by concentrating on the social, welfare, and educational needs of Palestinians. By cutting off the supplies and humanitarian aid to those in Gaza, this only serves to consolidate anger and blame for the Palestinian situation on Israelis. As Israeli officials contended that no humanitarian emergency exist in Gaza, the people who are picking up the pieces of their lives—with little food, no electricity, and no gas—see a much different suffering.
Equally wrong is the entrenchment of Hamas leaders among innocent Palestinians in Gaza. As rocket attacks attempt to mitigate the threat of Hamas attacking Israel, terrorist leaders have hidden out among innocent families and have used the casualties around them to bring public scorn against Israel. As hospitals fill with mainly civilians, it is clear that the toll of war has been paid more by the innocents than the combatants. When one must nitpick about the definition of “civilian,” there is more at play than a simple numbers game, there is a true intent to harm. The proportional appropriateness of force is multilayered and confusing, but there are egregious trespasses of Just War Theory that go beyond proportionality. Detractors of the theory point to the “moral illusions of war,” but when decision makers ignore the tenants that are set in place to ensure safety of the non-combatants, there is no justice left for the innocent.
Despite the ferocity of the conflict and losses on both sides, Israeli political leaders on the far right have gained popularity, as public sentiment is pushing for a harder line against Hamas. Following our election of hope, Israel is now in the midst of an election centered on fear. As our own recent history has taught us, when decisions are based in fear, the end result is usually a harried, ill-conceived policy that can end in devastation. The international community can no longer ignore the complexities of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and must dedicate efforts to securing and maintaining peace in the region. In his interview with Al-Arabiya TV, President Obama called for a holistic approach to the conflict that goes beyond blame and works with all the actors in the region to bring about a lasting peace.
The very nature of conflict is ugly. Just war theory is simply that—a theory—meant to guide decision makers to achieve their aims while protecting as many innocents as possible. In The New Republic, Michael Walzer affirms, “…war isn’t an act of retribution; it isn’t a backward-looking activity, and the law of even-Steven doesn’t apply.” In other words, despite the facts and analysis that may accompany a war’s inception, there is no benefit of hindsight. The answers are not clear, and therefore difficult decisions must be made using the best intelligence and data available. As the author of Just and Unjust Wars, Walzer came to the conclusion that there is sometimes no other option than the utilitarian for leaders to choose in the face of inhumane and unjust behavior, but that those decisions are no more cost-free than any other difficult decision made in government. Barring Immanuel Kant’s “Perpetual Peace,” there will be wars, and the onus must be on leaders to make the best decisions for the maximum number of people. As the saying goes, good should not be the enemy of perfect. Negating the inhumane elements of war does not mean that war is ever perfect or preferable. But it does ensure that the innocent are protected, and the human rights of combatants and non-combatants alike are sacrosanct despite the chaos.
Sarah Stanlick is currently heading a health and human rights project working to alleviate health burdens on the underserved population of Lawrence, MA and as a teaching assistant at Harvard University. She formerly served as Research Associate to Samantha Power at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and was also affiliated with the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at HKS. She graduated as a Trustee Scholar from Lafayette College and holds a Master’s degree in Conflict and Coexistence from Brandeis University.
Healing from War to End all Wars
by Christien van den Anker, University of West London
“Human rights discourse is not free of the tendency to blame even if the starting-point of the human rights doctrine is equality and respect for the dignity of all peoples."
Healing from War to End all Wars
by Christien van den Anker
The First World War was known as the war to end all wars. After the Second World War, and especially in reference to the Holocaust, the urgent slogan was “Never Again.” Although these hopes to end war and genocide have not yet been fulfilled, they inspired the worldwide moral stance against war and a host of international instruments and bodies contributed to the protection of both civilians and combatants during war.
Often history is invoked to make the point that “there will always be war” or “they are always fighting in that region.” However, I would like to make a different point. History is important to heal from, as it is very hard to think clearly when there are still big emotions attached to the previous wars affecting the people involved.
In the current debates around the Israeli attacks on Gaza this is evidenced all the time. I was reminded of it not only in the media and public debate but also in teaching sessions on this issue. There is a lot of confusion and we are all pressured to take sides. Blame is either apportioned to the side of Israelis when accused of disproportional violence or to the Palestinians in Gaza for targeting civilians. This is then quickly linked to more general attitudes that are anti-Arab or anti-Jewish. These kinds of exchanges are not helpful. And human rights discourse is not free of the tendency to blame even if the starting-point of the human rights doctrine is equality and respect for the dignity of all peoples. And even if the context for the United Nations framework on human rights is the U.N. Charter which calls for peaceful relations between nations.
Not assigning blame is not the same as condoning the violence used by either party; it is still everyone’s responsibility to stop wrong actions and to reach for human rights-based solutions.
So what is a better way of looking at these outbursts of a longstanding conflict? We need to remember that both peoples are after the same thing: a peaceful, secure, and just solution in which the human rights of all are guaranteed. The majority of people in both places are aiming to live good lives and sometimes get confused about what measures may bring that about. Without dealing with our emotions about the past, the other side of the conflict may easily be demonized and seen as more threatening than is realistic.
In practice I have heard and read many stories of people coming together across divides and dealing with the strong emotions that this brings up for them. This is not easy, especially in times where the conflict is heated, but it is clear that there are brave people on both sides who are moving towards closer relationships between Palestinians and Israelis. They do this despite their conditioning from a young age to see the other as dangerous enemies.
How can the international human rights movement help? By organizing to:
support both peoples to live with peace and justice, see their humanity and how they have been set up to fight each other historically;
to hold out the bigger picture of international positioning around the Middle East and take responsibility for getting human rights-based policies agreed in our countries;
supporting peace movements and stating the message that there is no military solution to the current situation—only diplomatic solutions;
stand up against anti-Jewish and anti-Arab and anti-Muslim messages everywhere;
listen with encouragement to everyone about their experiences and memories of war,so that we react with fresh thinking to conflict and not based on old pain and fear;
and spreading information on the many initiatives and acts that Israelis and Palestinians carry out to support each other and collaborate effectively.
So let us not partake in the discouraged, confused and fearful debates that try to blame but instead contribute our privileged position of having information outside of the mainstream media that tells us more about the international manipulation of both peoples and the reality of actual peaceful co-existence to bring about more widespread belief in a just peace for the whole of the Middle East. Lack of trust makes every relationship suffer and is a basic ingredient for human rights cultures.
Finally, it may well be that despite all the suffering the latest round of the conflict brought, there will be increased attention for the issues and more possibilities for increased dialogue, leadership, mobilization for human rights as a result.
Dr Christien van den Anker is Reader in Politics at the University of the West of England. Her specialization is in Global Political Theory and Global Ethics. Her recent research has been on contemporary forms of slavery, migration and equality. Her most recent publications are “Human Rrights in Iran.” and “The Relevance of Ethnography of ‘Others’ for Global Political Theory” in the Journal of International Political Theory, (October 2008) and the cutting edge collection of essays W. J. Doomernik (eds.) Trafficking and Women’s Rights (Palgrave, 2006). Christien is founding co-editor of the Journal of Global Ethics (Taylor and Francis) and edits a book series on Global Ethics for Palgrave. More information can be found at her department website http://www.uwe.ac.uk/hlss/politics/staff_cVanDenAnker.shtml.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Editor's Introduction - May 2007
“On Israel, America and AIPAC” by George Soros. New York Review of Books. April 12, 2007.
An Annotation:
This month’s Roundtable panel addresses a hotly contested, deeply emotional and politically crucial issue in the worlds of foreign policy and academia: Are Israel’s supporters in the United States contributing positively or negatively toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians? The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) advocates a Zionist position through its support of perpetual regional Israeli military dominance and economic sanctions directed toward Israel’s enemies, rather than constructive political engagement. On the other end of the spectrum are anti-Zionists who propose equally extreme positions utilizing sensationalist rhetoric, inflammatory metaphors (genocide and ethnic cleansing) and unrealistic political solutions (complete withdrawal to pre-1967 borders and unrestricted right to return for Palestinian refugees).
Somewhere lost between these two untenable positions is a workable policy. However arriving at this middle-ground will require a renewed, patient and frank dialogue motivated by clear headedness and willingness to compromise. As a result, we find before us one of the greatest questions facing modern politics: How do we—those who advocate for a peaceful settlement and the protection of human rights—embolden the marginalized, moderate voices who are straining to be heard in an arena dominated by impassioned polemics?
“The Palestine problem does not have a purely military solution. Military superiority is necessary for Israel’s national security, but it is not sufficient.”
Unrelenting devotion to a heavy-handed policy toward the Palestinians is the cornerstone of AIPAC’s advocacy. The failure of Israel and the West to acknowledge either a Hamas-led or unity Palestinian government has resulted in a further deterioration of the security situation and humanitarian conditions in the Occupied Territories. Yet, after nearly 60 years of perpetual strife and few signs of progress, proponents of this position refuse to consider alternatives. Furthermore, this ineffectual methodology has been exported and used by U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia, as well as by Israel against Lebanon in the summer of 2006. The notion that complex political struggles can be remedied or extinguished with externally-imposed brute force has repeatedly proved both antiquated and futile. How will any of these seemingly intractable conflicts be resolved when decision-makers are unwilling to imagine other, more nuanced and more creative, options?
“AIPAC under its current leadership has clearly exceeded its mission, and far from guaranteeing Israel’s existence, has endangered it.”
The true test as to the merit of AIPAC’s advocacy is whether the resultant policies have accomplished their intended goals. Are Israelis being kept safe? Is the state of Israel’s national existence secured? Are the current policies sustainable for the short- and long-term? To the extent that the solutions to any—or all—of these policy questions might be unfavorable to Israel, serves to underscore the necessity for current policies to be openly, yet cautiously, reconsidered.
“The current policy is not even questioned in the United States. While other problem areas of the Middle East are freely discussed, criticism of our policies toward Israel is very muted indeed.”
Moving forward, the question at the heart of the issue is whether critics of this monolithic policy will be given the opportunity to speak freely and offer alternative policy prescriptions that demonstrate greater respect for democracy and human rights, and provide the basis for lasting Israeli security. However, the constant charge by defenders of the current policy has been to equate criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism. In truth, some anti-Zionist detraction is indeed driven by intense ethnic hatred, and the oppressive behavior of the Israeli government and military has further fueled anti-Semitic sentiment. Leveraging this fact, AIPAC and its supporters frame all anti-Zionists as anti-Semitic, thereby discouraging— especially in the United States—the type of open criticism of Israel’s policies found within Israeli popular media. By stifling critical discussion of the issue, there can be no hope for progress toward peace in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Indeed, the only way to mediate the extreme voices on all sides of this issue and to empower moderate positions is to expand the space in which alternatives can be freely explored.
~ The Editors
Geopolitics or Human Rights?
by Judith Blau
“George Soros’ article...serves as a sobering reminder that the human rights revolution is constantly being scuttled by geopolitics that not only sideline human rights, but more devastatingly undermine their premises.”
George Soros’ article, “On Israel, America and AIPAC” serves as a sobering reminder that the human rights revolution is constantly being scuttled by geopolitics that not only sideline human rights, but more devastatingly undermine their premises. I happen to agree with him that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a major obstacle to the U.S. normalizing relations with any country in the Middle East, including and especially Israel. AIPAC is something of a misnomer because it is a coalition, not a committee, and some of its key members include neo-cons, as Soros mentions, as well as Christian evangelicals. AIPAC has long been powerful in influencing American foreign policy with respect to Israel and the Middle East, but never as powerful as it is now with the Bush administration. From AIPAC’s perspective, to criticize Israel is tantamount to being anti-Semitic, and for that reason Soros (who is Jewish, but not religious) is going out on a limb. In the end, I am not optimistic that Soros will be persuasive. But by focusing on the victims (or at least those in the Occupied Territories) I will propose another strategy that could be pursued, which simply bypasses entrenched allegiances, perhaps undermining them altogether.
Soros contrasts the failure of the Bush administration to facilitate a unity government between Hamas and Fatah with the efforts underway led by Saudi King Abdullah. Since Soros wrote his article, a unity government has been put into place, led by President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas. Cabinet positions are split between Hamas and Fatah, with a few representatives of smaller parties. The 2006 economic boycott imposed on the Occupied Territories after the sweeping victory of Hamas remain in place in spite of the fact that the E.U. and the U.S. had earlier suggested a unity government would be acceptable. The E.U. and Soros’ main point is that AIPAC has fundamentally stymied the U.S. from playing a useful and even sane role in facilitating a process that would lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinians, if not a two-state solution. Since it was published, the Soros piece has been both praised and condemned in subsequent exchanges in the pages of the New York Review of Books.
These exchanges follow on the heels of others set off about a year earlier in an article published in The London Review of Books (LRB) by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, entitled, “The Israel Lobby.” The response to the article prompted the LRB to hold a debate under the heading “The Israel lobby: Does it have too much influence on American foreign policy?” The debate took place in New York on September 28 at Cooper Union. The panelists were Shlomo Ben-Ami, Martin Indyk, Tony Judt, Rashid Khalidi, John Mearsheimer and Dennis Ross, and the moderator was Anne-Marie Slaughter (A videocast of the debate is available online).
It is not as if these articles and live debates take place in a vacuum. Over the past year there has been an acrimonious fight between Alan Dershowitz and Norman Finkelstein involving similar issues (see Frank Menetrez’s April 30 th article in Counterpunch for a recent summary). And it is important to stress that there is a long history in which criticisms of Israel are interpreted as criticisms of Judaism. Hannah Arendt was accused of being an anti-Semite (see Commentary Magazine) in 1963 when she published Eichmann in Jerusalem
The truth of the matter is that Americans do not use the same standards for the state of Israel that they use for every other state, including their own, and since the 2003 invasion of Iraq this has been exacerbated. This has had devastating consequences for Palestinians. But in this regard the U.S. is not alone. In April 2006 the European Union and the U.S. both announced suspension of aid to the Palestinian Territories, with the E.U. announcing that it would only give need based assistance, and the U.S. announcing that it would only provide aid that “both protects and promotes democratic alternatives to Hamas” (it should be noted that the 2004 election was considered by election observers to be democratic and fair).
What is truly tragic is revealed by UNICEF's March 2007 Humanitarian Monitor for the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Regardless of what the U.S. State Department and the E.U. External Affairs Office believe, there is a humanitarian crisis unfolding. The details reported by UNICEF are tragic beyond comprehension:
* The Palestinian Authority can no longer pay salaries of health care workers;
* Immunization programs and most drug dispensing programs for chronic illnesses have ceased;
* There are no elective surgeries and outpatient clinics have closed;
* There is a ban on the importation of many drugs;
* In March 2007, homes, olive tree groves and buildings were destroyed;
* In March 2007 schools, including kindergartens, were destroyed;
* Consistent with warnings issued in 2004, the Beit Lahia wastewater treatment plant overflowed in March 2007, displacing more than 2,000 residents;
* In March 2007, over 67% of children between 9 and 12 months were malnourished;
* Food commodity imports declined appreciably in March 2007;
* 17 children under 18 were killed or injured in armed violence in March 2007;
* 384 children under 18 were held in detention by Israeli authorities in March 2007.
What can possibly be done? It might be assumed that eventually the U.S. and the E.U. would normalize relations with Israel, which in turn would mean more sensible thinking in the U.S. and the E.U. regarding the Occupied Territories. But in the meantime a “humanitarian crisis” is unfolding, according to a 2007 United Nations report. Eventually is too long to wait for residents of Gaza and the West Bank.
I would like to suggest an alternative, or supplementary strategy. Drawing from clear evidence of the determination and effectiveness of citizen-actors when they mobilize around human rights campaigns, a global citizens’ campaign would be effective against these harmful Israeli policies. As evidence of this, the international campaign and boycott played a critical role in the collapse of the South African apartheid regime, and there is now a boycott getting underway of companies that have operations in the Sudan. There have been effective boycotts of particular companies (e.g., Taco Bell, Nike, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola) and, also just getting underway, a boycott of Wal-Mart. As consumers have become more savvy about campaigns and mobilization, they have become more effective. For example, United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) mobilized an increasingly successful campaign for “sweat-free campuses,” and now chapters of USAS have launched related campaigns, including those for a “Living Wage,” and “Workers’ Rights to Organize.” That is to say, students in the United States have become increasingly skillful in mobilizing around human rights, and in making connections involving different ethical issues.
We might imagine a campaign against multinationals headquartered in Israel, boycotts of products made or produced in Israel, and campaigns against companies located elsewhere that carry out substantial business with Israel. This may appear to be logistically complex, but waiting for heads of state to respond to the harms inflicted on Palestinians has taken far too long. Besides, the human rights revolution belongs to the people.
Judith Blau has published three books on human rights with Alberto Moncada: Human Rights: Beyond the Liberal Vision (2005); Justice in the United States: Human Rights & the US Constitution (2006); and, Freedoms and Solidarities: In Pursuit of Human Rights (2007). She is Director of the Social and Economic Justice (interdisciplinary) Undergraduate Minor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Blau and Moncada are now working on a volume on human rights that will be published by Paradigm. Outside of her academic work, Blau also serves as President of Sociologists without Borders.
Should Supporters of Israel Embrace an "Open Society"?
by Harry Kreisler
“The threat to sound U.S. Middle East policy may not be the existence of the Israeli faction in the American debate; rather, the threat may lie in the failure of that faction to embrace alternative ideas in light of a changing environment.”
Organizations, such as lobbies, must adapt to changes in their environment or they risk mission failure and possible extinction. Adaptation requires new ideas, new constituencies, and rigorous self-analysis. A vigorous internal debate raises the possibility of corrections in course as an organization navigates through its changing environment.
In “On Israel, America, and AIPAC,” financier George Soros has entered the debate on the role of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in the making of U.S. policy toward Israel. He writes that “a much-needed self-examination of American policy in the Middle East has started in this country; but it can't make much headway as long as AIPAC retains powerful influence in both the Democratic and Republican parties.”
Soros, a major funder of democratization abroad as well as of liberal candidates and research centers in the U.S., offers no new insight. Nonetheless, Soros’s entry into the controversy about U.S. relations with Israel is significant, and reflects changes in the policy environment that shapes U.S.-Israeli relations. Internationally,
* Iran has emerged as a major regional player racing to acquire nuclear weapons;
* Divisions between Sunni and Shia have re-emerged with enormous implications for the Middle East; and
* U.S. intervention and its subsequent occupation of Iraq has turned into a foreign policy disaster.
Within the United States,
* There is a renewed debate about U.S. relations with Israel provoked by two distinguished American academics: John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Steve Walt of Harvard University, and by a former President of the United States, Jimmy Carter;
* An FBI sting operation has netted two high AIPAC officials accused of passing top-secret data to Israel;
* The neo-conservative U.S. foreign policy hegemony has collapsed. Although the Israeli foreign policy establishment was skeptical of the Iraq invasion, there is a strong identification of the American neo-con architects of the failed Iraq policy with uncritical support of Israel and involvement in Israeli politics.
In this environment, supporters of Israel must rethink their strategy. Should they direct their energies toward influencing Israel to change its policies on the Palestinian problem, including issues such as negotiation with Hamas? Should they caution Israel against labeling all adversaries as terrorists and thereby discouraging an Israeli strategy that might divide and conquer? Should supporters of Israel raise questions about the unintended consequences of having to police the Palestinian lands as an occupying power?
An internal debate about alternative options for Israel would position its American friends to support Israel while influencing a more mature American stance toward Israel. Unfortunately, supporters of Israel are frozen in time, apparently unwilling or unable to channel their concern for Israel into support for more realistic policies within Israel, which would reflect the changed environment in the region and in the West. The friendly relations between two democratic states are not in question, but the direction and nature of the relationship is at stake.
Unfortunately, success in winning support for Israel has bred myopia. And this myopic faction in the United States gets its way and U.S. foreign policy does not adapt. The success is a consequence of understanding only part of Madison’s insight in The Federalist Papers—a mobilized faction pursuing its interest is important in making policy. Over the years, the supporters of a strong, democratic Israel have made their voice heard. However, Madison also presumed a pluralism of interests balancing each other for the common good, a result generally found in U.S. domestic policy-making, but not in its foreign policy. There is no balancer of interests when a highly mobilized faction pursues its interests in this domain. If a uniformity of thought exists within the faction driving the policy, addressing change is even more difficult for both the faction (Israeli supporters) and the U.S. political system.
Since the founding of Israel in 1948, the Holocaust and the failure of Arab states to recognize Israel shaped the dialogue among supporters of Israel—and a diversity of opinion has been rare if non-existent in the Academy (Ian Lustick is one glaring exception). In this context of uniformity, AIPAC has assumed a pre-eminent role by taking advantage of the strategic logic that guided U.S. foreign policy.
In the first phase of U.S. relations with Israel (1948 to the end of the Cold War), Israel became a strategic partner and proxy for U.S. interests in the Middle East and elsewhere, but there was some balance because of America’s need for oil and its subsequent support of the Arab states (especially Saudi Arabia). In this context, the vigorous, uncritical support of Israel by its supporters was sensible and was important in capturing the public’s sense of Israel as the “David” facing the Arab “Goliath” whose goal was perceived to be a second Holocaust.
Little has evolved in thinking about Israel among its supporters even though the nature of Israeli’s relation to its Arab neighbors changed with the 1967 war. See Tom Segev’s new book, 1967: Israel, the War and the Year that Transformed the Middle East.
With the end of the Cold War and the emergence of the administration of George W. Bush, American policy toward Israel has become even more unbalanced. Christian evangelicals and prominent neo-cons became an important element overriding other concerns. Furthermore, important policy groups in Israel and in the United States embraced a one-dimensional notion of a global war on terrorism.
The threat to sound U.S. Middle East policy may not be the existence of the Israeli faction in the American debate; rather, the threat may lie in the failure of that faction to embrace alternative ideas in light of a changing environment. Ironically, Soros is known for using his money to shape the democratization of the Soviet bloc after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Perhaps some modest portion of these resources can now fund a dialogue within the faction that supports Israel. An open society is the name of the game—a frank, vigorous debate about what is best for Israel and how American supporters of Israel can influence policymakers in Israel and the United States to insure Israel’s survival and prosperity.
Harry Kreisler is Executive Director of the Institute of International Studies at the University of California at Berkeley. In that role, he shapes, administers, and implements interdisciplinary academic and public affairs programs that analyze global issues. He is also creator, executive producer and host of Conversations with History, an interview program, broadcast nationally every Thursday evening on satellite television, and on cable throughout California. Conversations with History is also a critically acclaimed online archive containing more than 360 one-hour interviews with distinguished men and women from all over the world who talk about their lives and their work. Harry Kreisler is also Executive Producer of Connecting Students to the World, a World Wide Web -based program that introduces students and retirees to leading figures in international affairs through online curricula, preparatory workshops, and Internet conversations.
Engagement as a Way toward Peace
by Mahmood Monshipouri
“Increasingly, it has become clear that there are limits to military power and that the cardinal rule of diplomacy is that it is often more imperative to talk to your opponents than your friends.”
The Bush administration’s active support for the Israeli government is counterproductive in its refusal to recognize a Palestinian unity government which includes Hamas. A great majority of American Jews have called for Israel to withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967 and support the creation of a Palestinian state. A hard-line minority of politicians in the United States, along with their affiliated media networks and think-tanks, have continued to dominate the main Jewish lobbying group, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The pervasive influence of AIPAC in shaping U.S. foreign policy has systematically led to the denial of self-determination and statehood for the Palestinians. Some American scholars, such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, have argued that AIPAC’s influence causes trouble on several fronts by increasing the terrorist danger, making it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and contributing greatly to Islamic radicalism in Europe and Asia. These consequences have many adverse effects not only for U.S. interests in the Middle East but also for the region as a whole.
Arguably, Israelis can live a normal life if their neighbors can equally enjoy a normal life as well. Increasingly, it has become clear that there are limits to military power and that the cardinal rule of diplomacy is that it is often more imperative to talk to your opponents than your friends. Hamas holds the key to so many problems in Israeli-Palestinian relations that it is necessary to find a way to come to terms with it. There cannot be any peace, cease-fire, or rapprochement with the Palestinians without the cooperation of Hamas.
The experience of being an oppressed people in the Occupied Territories has made the Palestinians’ resistance a defensive marker of their identity, despite the presence of competing identities among them. The desire to gain independence has led to Hamas’s active participation in politics, with its political wing pursuing diplomatic channels. Arguably, more moderate members of Hamas in the Palestinian unity government, including Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, can legitimately be brought into the peace process in an effort to render the process inclusive. Throughout the Muslim world, political parties that have Islamic roots have become more moderate after taking power on a national scale (as in Turkey) or after participating in the political process (as in Morocco or Egypt).
The exclusion of more moderate elements of Hamas, along with growing signs of economic deterioration in the West Bank and Gaza, is certain to further strengthen the hands of radical groups such as Islamic Jihad. Collective punishment of the Palestinians for their support of Hamas in national elections—especially after forming the national unity government—denies the very reality of the actual hardship under which many Palestinians live. Economic conditions have grown much worse in the aftermath of the international economic boycott of the government led by Hamas. According to the U.N. World Food Programme (WFP), the unemployment rate in Gaza is 39 percent and nearly 54 percent of 1.4 million Gazans suffer from food insecurity. According to the same source, the WFP defines the Palestinian poverty line at $2 per person per day. Those who suffer from food insecurity only have $1.60 per day to spend.
This extreme stress has created cleavages between the Hamas armed underground movement and some of the more moderate political leaders who support the cease-fire, in the hopes of winning further international support for the unity government. There is a historic opportunity for the Bush administration to exploit the divisions between the military and political wings of Hamas. The Saudi-brokered truce between Iran-backed Hamas and the nationalist Fatah Party has created a unique opportunity for the reasonable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Because of the U.S. strategic alliance with Israel, the long-lasting and enduring solution for the Palestinian situation must come from a regional power such as Saudi Arabia. For a seismic political shift to happen, however, several factors must enter the play. The Bush administration must avoid AIPAC pressures to shape its foreign policy toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it must take advantage of the Saudi initiative. It is time to pay attention to the Saudi initiative, which has been in the works for some time but never seriously pursued.
Likewise, the militant elements of Hamas must recognize that they cannot win a violent struggle, that they must recognize Israel’s right to exist, and that they must seek their goals through political means. Recently, in a case of comparable history and circumstance, the two fierce adversaries in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland agreed to a power-sharing government, due in large part to economic and political pressures.
At this point, the Bush administration lacks any foreign policy direction in the region. The question is: will it permit AIPAC to influence its policy, thus remaining clueless as to how to move toward the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or will it simply bank on the Saudi initiative as a new way of doing more to ultimately address this long-festering regional conflict? The U.S.’s unconditional support of Israel, to the detriments of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, has proven to be a costly policy. It must be recognized that such unequal treatment of the conflicting parties render the United States an impotent power when it comes to brokering a reasonable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Dr. Monshipouri is a Professor in the Department of International Relations at San Francisco State University and currently a visiting fellow at the Yale Center for International and Area Studies. Dr. Monshipouri's publications include Islamism, Secularism, and Human Rights in the Middle East (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998), and, more recently, the volume Constructing Human Rights in the Age of Globalization (eds. Mahmood Monshipouri, Neil Englehart, Andrew J. Nathan, and Kavita Philip, Armonk, NY: M.E.Sharpe, 2003).
AIPAC's Good Intentions Undermine Israel's Interests
by Ali Wyne
“Israel is in the odd position of having the world’s lone superpower as its only reliable ally. It would likely have more partnerships if it embraced the international community’s proposals for achieving a durable peace in the Middle East.”
While the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is nominally pro-Israel, its advice undermines Israel’s interests. It does not encourage Israel to make concessions, but rather recommends that Israel ignore the reformists within and outside of it. The folly of such counsel becomes apparent when one recognizes that Israel’s current strategy cannot be sustained.
Indeed, common knowledge suggests that imposing hardship on Palestinians will never afford Israel the security that it seeks and deserves; the burdens of instituting and maintaining occupation are tremendous. Were it not for massive infusions of American aid, one wonders how Israel would fare or how its leadership would proceed. As this hypothetical scenario reveals, Israel is in the odd position of having the world’s lone superpower as its only reliable ally. It would likely have more partnerships if it embraced the international community’s proposals for achieving a durable peace in the Middle East.
In AIPAC’s rendering, unfortunately, proponents of this reasoning are either anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic (or perhaps both) and, at a minimum, guilty of extreme naïveté. The irony of this judgment is that many reasonable people consider themselves pro-Israel, without judging Israel's politics. The country’s contributions to virtually every realm of human endeavor are invaluable. And when one considers that Israel was established by survivors of the world’s most horrific genocide, its contributions seem all the more remarkable. It serves as a role-model for Arab and Muslim countries that endeavor to transcend their current plight.
Unfortunately, Israeli’s myriad achievements—the ones that I and many others would prefer to discuss—rarely receive the attention that they merit because of a backdrop of conflict: conflict with Palestinians, conflict with Arab neighbors, and conflict among themselves. It is doubtful that this situation will change if the “ Israel lobby”—in particular, AIPAC—maintains its current course (I place the term “ Israel lobby” in quotes to emphasize how little a consensus exists on its meaning. While it lies well outside of the purview of this response to volunteer my own definition, suffice it to say that the definition offered by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer casts the net too widely).
AIPAC has every right to lobby on behalf of Israel, and it has done so with awing effectiveness for the past five decades. However, its efforts to stifle discourse—on the Arab-Israeli conflict and, increasingly, on the relationship between the United States and Israel—have aroused many individuals’ ire. Interestingly, most Israelis would disagree with its uncompromising posture, which (until now) has largely characterized mainstream discourse in the United States.
Indeed, one is hard-pressed to think of another instance in which one country defends the policies of another country more so than the embattled country itself. Ha’aretz routinely runs opinion pieces that criticize Israel’s occupation. Many of them (for example, Meron Benvenisti’s articles) quite openly invoke the language of apartheid to describe its policy towards settlements in the Occupied Territories. Regardless of these assessments’ legitimacy, the fact that they are common staples of Israeli popular discourse but contentious rarities in American discussion is illuminating (AIPAC’s own representatives boast of their enormous ability to shape mainstream discourse and influence electoral outcomes. So, why is it, then, that these very observations are considered controversial (and conspiratorial) when their issuers happen to lie outside of the arena of pro-Israel advocacy?).
There is no question that Israel has real enemies. It is for this reason that the United States must always remain committed to its survival. Why, however, does AIPAC contrive enemies? In the universe that it has created, virtually every country outside of the United States either is or has the potential to become an adversary—is it surprising that Israel’s leadership is so often defensive (and, in many instances, paranoid)? As a nascent period of violence grips the Holy Land, those individuals who are Israel’s greatest defenders should be AIPAC’s sharpest critics.
Ali Wyne is a senior at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he is pursuing dual degrees in Management and Political Science, as well as a minor in Economics. He serves as Vice-President of the Undergraduate Association, and as Editor-in-Chief of the MIT International Review, MIT’s first journal of international affairs. He will be contributing a chapter, “How World Opinion Challenges American Foreign Policy,” to a forthcoming volume, The Public Diplomacy Handbook (Routledge 2008). He maintains a blog on global problems and solutions, “The Struggle of Memory Against Forgetting.”
Posts
