Part Seven: Why Do We Hesitate?

…continued from “Some Possible Steps For A Solution?” (i.e. read the part(s) below first)

I’m curious about what makes westerners willing to act so coldly to Palestinians. Christianized western states have a tradition of generosity and the people living in them are normally quite willing to share their resources in charitable contributions; and yet we seem perfectly willing to ignore the suffering among the common Middle-Eastern states. Why do we seem to find it more congenial to keep them down instead of helping them up? Part of this sentiment may have originated from a traditional connection we have to the state of Israel. While Christians believe the Jews are a bit confused, both groups are supposed to be praying to the same God. Furthermore, it’s no secret that the bible predicts perpetual conflict in the area. So if you really believe the pursuit of peace is hopeless, why even make the effort? But this sort of belief cannot inform political policy. Even if we believe efforts in the pursuit of stability are futile, it is completely unfair to behave as though this justifies not trying.

But this is not a sufficient explanation since we are largely a secular society. It could be the mere fact that Israel appeals to our western sensibilities since they share many of our attitudes. I think Israel’s response to terror coincides with how we (like to) imagine we would respond in a similar circumstance. Conversely, religion in Palestine (and other Muslim countries) is much closer to the surface and we perceive this as regressive since we believe our own scientific morality is more evolved. However, whether this belief is enlightened or misinformed it should not affect our treatment of Palestine. Even if our society is better than theirs this is no justification for poor treatment. We owe compassion and support because Palestinians are human; they are entitled to all the rights and privileges that go along with it.

Part Six: Some Possible Steps For A Solution?

…continued from “But Israel Is A Bully” (i.e. read the part(s) below first)

Most of my comments so far have been complaints about inefficacity of the attempted solutions. But how do you begin to address the injustice inherent in the Palestinian plight? How do you create meaningful peace in the area? You cannot negotiate with terrorists (Jack Layton suggested it, but I’m going to assume he’s brighter than that and was just hoping to score some cheap political points) because ideological or religious extremists pursue absolute and nonnegotiable goals. Hamas would not be satisfied by increased justice for the Palestinian people; they want Israel wiped from the map (though, as a political party, they seem to be somewhat corrupted (in a good way) by their newly achieved power).
For Israel, improving Palestinian life in a general sense often looks like rewarding terrorism. For example, when they began the program to “retreat to defensible borders” they demolished all the buildings and towns that had been established under Israeli occupation. There is a rational reason to do so, since leaving the area and the homes might appear as though they had been forced out of the area by the actions of terrorists and made it appear as though participating in this kind of activity had benefits. Destroying the buildings may have thwarted some of the expectations Palestinians had about reclaiming the area, but it is also a missed opportunity for a cheap act of goodwill. I call it cheap not because the homes were inexpensive to build, but because leaving them doesn’t cost anything whereas fuelling the heavy machinery and paying people to knock them down does. But this just goes to show that it isn’t Israel who should be responsible for making things better.
Stephen Harper commented during a speech at a B'nai Brith banquet that "our government believes in a two-state solution —in a secure democratic and prosperous Israel living beside a viable democratic and peaceful Palestinian state." Indeed most of the western democracies seem to agree with some version of this idea, but none seem to engage in its pursuit beyond the occasional concession in international negotiations. It’s easy to see why Iran, Libya and Syria are so influential; they invest in the area. You can’t blame someone for going to a school that encourages and trains terrorists if it’s the only one available. While the western states talk about establishing a thriving and stable economy, Palestine’s Middle-Eastern allies are the only ones spending any money. It is my belief that a strong middle class is necessary prerequisite to a peaceful Palestine. Not only would this curb the jealousy they feel, but well-off people don’t blow themselves up. They have something to live for.
I’m not exactly sure how all this talk about making Palestine a better place can be translated into action. Since we often criticize externally funded schools –for good reason; in these cases education is often an ancillary objective to more sinister agenda— we probably would look silly if tried to set some up, even if our intentions were sincere. We do have to be more proactive; granting liberties does nothing to improve relations, we may actually have to give something real. I believe that the first step should be to resume the aid-package program. While I realize that the program stopped because the political leadership in the country refuses to acknowledge Israel and that this response is likely to be effective (since Hamas is likely to be short-lived if they cannot provide the basic essentials for their population) this strategy looks to me like a kinder, gentler form of state-sponsored terror. For example, the definition of Terrorism offered in my intro political-science course is “the deliberate use of violence or the threat of such, directed upon civilians in order to achieve political objectives” (Thomas Kapitan). The cessation of aid-packages is deliberate, it is directed at the civilians and it is intended to achieve political objectives. Our moral principles are in serious jeopardy when we advocate such hypocritical standards.

Part Five: But Israel Is A Bully

…continued from “And For That Matter…” (i.e. read the part(s) below first)
But Israel is guilty of many crimes against the Palestinian people. If some disgruntled Palestinian fires a homemade rocket into a vacant Israeli field, Israel returns fire, sends in tanks and soldiers and then eliminates a few high raking political leaders. Is this a fair reaction? (…well, it probably is in at least one sense since an aggressive manoeuvre is an aggressive manoeuvre, we can’t expect Israel to shoot back with similar crappy and inaccurate weapons because that would be a war crime).

There is an inconsistency in the application of the rules of ethical international relations which allows Israel to bomb civilians, hold suspected terrorists in jail indefinitely and throw the whole country into disorder whenever she feels threatened. The pecking order seems to allow the US and her allies nearly complete freedom to dominate those unable to defend themselves. When two groups negotiate it is true that the stronger party is expected to have to make fewer concessions since negotiations are usually motivated by a desire to avoid war; so it only makes sense that the more likely victor is able to demand more. However, might does not make right. Just because Israel and her buddies can make invasive and restricting demands on Palestine does not mean that it is justified.

If we could actually understand their perspective, we would start treating Palestinians with more dignity and respect and at least allow them control over their domestic affairs. The bombing episodes in the ‘30s and ‘40s demonstrate that no group is inherently more ethical than the other (a period during which Israel engaged in terror tactics). Although Israel seems to have grown out of that phase faster, it was only able to do so with the support and acceptance of the rest of the world. If we really intend to establish a meaningful and lasting peace in the area we owe more support, understanding, sympathy to the Palestinians.

Part Four: And For That Matter…

…continued from “No One Deserves This Fate” (i.e. read the part(s) below first)

Just how much can you blame on their social circumstances?

Shouldn’t the Palestinians be able to realize that they must be doing something wrong when everyone is against them? Granted that they are often misinformed, but they should recognize the inherent injustice in attacking civilians. We can still hold them responsible for their actions even though they are victims of circumstance. We don’t let murderers and drug dealers out of prison because they grew up in bad homes, and we can apply the same kind of justice to those who engage in acts of violence directed against civilians… But when this argument us used it is often a deliberate misdirection. I don’t think many people believe that terrorism is in fact justified (at least I hope not), so it oversimplifies the dynamics of the situation. The focus of my investigation is centered on Israeli-Palestinian policies and not anti-terror strategies (except so far as they relate to the development and growth of violent sentiments in the civilian population). The terrorists can’t escape culpability because of their circumstances; applying this kind of justice is in complete opposition to the foundations of modern liberal societies. But when the sense of frustration and dissatisfaction harbored by the average Palestinian citizen, generated by the deplorable conditions of their everyday life, turns into hatred of their much better off neighbors, it is understandable even though the consequences are not tolerable.

Part Three: No One Deserves This Fate

…continued from “Is Wealth A Crime?” (i.e. read the part(s) below first)

(I’m not going to spend too much time on this part since I covered the principle in the “Civilian Culpability” blog.)

Is it fair to hold the Palestinians responsible for all this? All they’ve ever known is war. Education and opportunity is not available to them like it is for Israelis; is it their fault they are sometimes misinformed? I don’t think there are very many Palestinians who really know the details of the deals that have been offered them (clearly defined land with autonomous government… it has come up more than once). They are too often used as a proxy by nations like Syria who wish to wage war on Israel without the consequences of a counter-attack. If you are confused and poorly informed, is it wrong to listen to those who help you most?

Although terrorism is unjust and wrong (I won’t bother explaining why, but leave a comment if you disagree, I’ll explain it) at least it gives them some hope and a small sense of power. It’s a reaction born of desperation. As for the suicide bombings, if there’s nothing left to live for it only makes sense to use your life to strike back at those you view as oppressors.

In response, countries provide aid packages. But this does nothing to improve the Palestinian psyche. It is absolutely necessary to keep the people alive, but it only perpetuates the circumstances since the Palestinians never get to “make it on their own.” These packages are band-aid solutions and we, as an international community, should feel great shame in our abandonment of a greater and more permanent solution. In responding in such a manner, we don’t just let down the Palestinians, we let down Israel too. There is more that one signature on the Balfour Declaration. Though the problems only rarely have an effect on us (9/11), in the name of justice and fairness, we should not act as though Israel is responsible for them.

Part Two: Is Wealth A Crime?

…continued from “What’s the deal with Israel?” (i.e. read the part below first)

Why shouldn’t Israel have the capability to defend herself? It’s not as though her neighbors inspire confidence. Ahmadinejad denies her existence at every international meeting while doggedly pursuing nuclear power; Palestine elects a terrorist group as a “government”; Syria sends rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon… seems like everyone is an anti-Semite. While these countries do lack complete autonomy, since Israel could reduce them to rubble if they stepped out of line, this is completely reasonable. There is no one in the world that has the ability to act completely independent of international consensus (the US comes closest, but they do so by pushing boundaries, not ignoring them). No one is entirely autonomous. Why should we allow them to possess WMDs when they won’t act like grown-ups?...but I digress. I believe I was interested in Israeli-Palestinian affairs.

Israel has often been called a mistake, but this doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion (I’ll tell you what I think about this line of reasoning in another blog, don’t worry). So I’m going to ignore that aspect for now on the grounds that most rational people will agree that we can’t ask them to leave now; we can’t “fix” it by uprooting the Jews to satisfy the Palestinians. So Israel must be allowed to exist. However, a more constructive debate might be whether Israel should be forced to allow more liberties to the Palestinians. Free up transportation routes and the like. From the Israeli viewpoint, this must come perilously close to ceding to terrorism. Not just because they have to give up something for nothing, they must be used to that by now, but also because it allows the terrorists more freedom to plan against them (it’s a little easier to smuggle in weapons when no one is inspecting the crates).

The problem with allowing the Palestinians more freedom is evidenced by their history. It could be argued that terrorism continued even when Israel left Gaza and retreated to “defensible borders” because it still wasn’t enough. However, terrorists are not a unified political front. It’s much easier to get them rolling than to make them quit. Indeed the terrorist groups all seem to have a common ambition, the complete destruction and elimination of Israel. Some people might say that if Israel would just relax its control eventually the Palestinians would recognize this generosity and cease to terrorize them; but even if this is absolutely true, would it be fair to expect Israel to endure this sacrifice? What would happen to them in the interim between releasing their intense control and the supposed Palestinian cessation of hostilities?

What’s The Deal With Israel?

(Preliminary preamble: Ever since the Lebanese-Israeli conflict I’ve been thinking about Israel’s situation. I had been considering releasing a comprehensive paper, but once I began to consider all of the relevant factors I realized it might take another month for me to complete. I wrote the following segment last night along with most of the next entry, so it should follow shortly. Initially I concentrate on the Israeli-Palestinian relationship since it seems to be the most pressing, but I’ll finish with an analysis of Israel’s global predicament. )

Try and imagine life from the Palestinian perspective. What’s it like really to grow up poor; with occasional bombings cracking the clay in your home and knowing that there’s a group of people living in the same terrain, but instead of suffering they manage to prosper and flourish? I mean, lets compare circumstances for minute.

Israel is hardly poor. Their wealth per capita might not be extraordinary by western standards, but it sticks out quite a bit when you consider their geographical location. Palestine on the other hand is on the verge of a “humanitarian crisis”, with barely enough of the basic essentials to support its citizens. Just next door however, there is a “special” group of people who live on identical terrain who, instead of suffering, manage to prosper and flourish.

Israel has planes, trains and automobiles and the military capabilities to dominate each and every one of its neighbors. Not only do they have the nuclear capabilities to destroy everyone else in the vicinity, but in conventional combat there is no other country that could even hope to put a plane in the air in a time of war. It’s no secret that their air force is one of the most advanced in the world; they may no have the numbers, but they are using the same equipment deployed by the US. But how must it feel to know that your country is defenseless in the event of a conflict? (I can’t imagine that Israel is unaware of the psychological impact their air force has either; it is common practice to “buzz” the area whenever an attack is suspected or occurs.) Since they can control the seaways and airways every import is subject to Israeli scrutiny too.

Israel has powerful friends. While the international community prevents them from completely subjugating their neighbors, the US, Britain, and even Canada is willing to give them whatever it takes to ensure their continued dominance (Canada for its part, mostly contributes “soft power” by way of support in international negotiations (i.e. our contribution is consent (ever heard the phrase “Israel has the right to defend herself”?))). But who’s buddies with Palestine?... Lebanon? (ha, ha)… Syria I suppose, but they’re like an evil sibling who provokes them to bad behavior and then gets away Scott-free. They’re not exactly international superstars anyway. Truth is, Palestine has no friends. (She’s like the lonely creepy-guy who roams the hallways in a black trench coat.)

Supposedly they both have the same kind of government, live in the same physical environment…and people are all the same right? What’s fair about their predicament?

Ignatieff’s Consistent New Original Position on Israel (...confused? me too)

It’s too bad for Iggy. First he gets the Lebanese mad because he “wouldn’t lose sleep over” EnCana (a town, at one point occupied by Hezbollah, where Israel bombed and killed several civilians); then his “clarification” pisses off Israeli supporters because he later calls the bombings a war crime. It takes a truly unique talent to alienate the people on both sides of an argument at the same time. Tonight on The Hour Michael was busy “not backpedaling, not clarifying” but… talking(?) about his alleged anti-Israeli position. Apparently he wants to set the record straight by telling us that what he really believes is that it’s important for us to have a set of rules and regulations about ethical war-time conduct which we apply consistently. While I think this is a particularly noble aspiration—an example of why I have considered him my leading preference for Liberal leader– it doesn’t explain his position towards the Middle East. Although the claim made by his political rival Bob Rae that Ignatieff has switched positions three times is unfair, so are Iggy’s protests that his comments are clear but taken out of context. If their inflammatory nature is caused by a mere misunderstanding why doesn’t he clarify them by simply telling us his true stance towards the Middle East? ...I hope this isn’t a strategy to keep his attitude ambiguous so he can propagate the Liberal propensity to use opinion polls to develop foreign strategy.

Civilian Culpability

Conversation about terrorism is starting to have a distinctly dangerous note. I’ve heard people half-jokingly (but only half) say that terrorists should all be killed and since their not about to crowd together and stand still while we take aim, we should just nuke the those who harbor them to solve the problem once and for all. A slightly more rational view holds that civilian casualties are a somewhat regrettable necessity in our conflict with terrorism, but this view is a development from a not-so-uncommon mistake—rooted in racism– which assumes that the people in countries harboring terrorists are somehow culpable for their crimes.
While it’s true that many of the people in these countries are sympathetic to the terrorist cause, they are not completely responsible for acquiring these beliefs. In Lebanon the Hezbollah owned a private network and were free to broadcast the information that promoted their view and mindset. Can we blame the Lebanese for listening? While many people don’t bother to consider it, the same sort of thing goes on in Canada with our news agencies. While they avoid overt lies it is common practice to influence how the story is interpreted to better correspond to the beliefs of the news agency reporting it. It does not matter whether the story relies on testimonials from experts, interviews with the public or analysis of the bare facts; it still contains as much influence from the interviewer as the interviewee and we are often guilty of the same sin of unreflective acceptance about what we’re told. The information proffered by Hezbollah’s network may not have completely reflected the truth but it is understandable that the Lebanese people could be misled.
But is it reasonable to blame people in environments like this for forming mistaken beliefs? Perhaps we believe that if they just started thinking for themselves they’d soon figure out that something was wrong with their beliefs. After all, surely they must wonder why the whole western word seems to be allied against them. But a quick view into western history proves that we are willing to act in a similar fashion. It’s a curious sort of fairytale-belief that holds that the ideals espoused during the French revolution were commonly understood by the average citizen. Probably the truth is that the average person had a deep seeded sense of injustice and came to blame it on the method of governance. The reaction to this sense of injustice was not calm, rational and peaceful; rather the bloody revolution proved how far western people are willing to go in reaction to a perceived injustice. So consider the plight of the average citizen in a country like Lebanon. Just next door there resides a wealthy neighbor, loved by the superpowers and possessing enough military might to annihilate any opponent. Would it seem fair that they should prosper while the Muslim countries decay? …and what reaction should we expect to this sentiment? If people really are all the same we cannot expect better behavior from them than we get from ourselves.
I’m not defending their right to terrorize, but these “crazy Arabs” are reacting in a manner that strikingly resembles scenes from both our past and present and we therefore cannot in good conscience hold ourselves in higher regard. I think this tendency to convince ourselves that the civilian casualties in these countries are tolerable comes from our self-deceptive ability to disassociate from them. While cultural and historical influences prevented the current terrorists from developing here, nothing but a birth lottery made it the case that it happened to Middle-Easterners and not us. Because people can be blamed for the choices they make but not their environmental circumstances, blaming these people for the terror problem isn’t fair. A civilian death is not any less tragic because they live in a country half ruled by terrorists. There is the same deeply rooted injustice inherent in even their accidental deaths. Killing the militants is necessary, but each time a civilian is killed it is just as tragic as when an Israeli or American dies.