I havent blogged about yesterdays Israeli attack that killed Hamas military leader Salah Shehada (Ill assume everyone knows the basic facts, if not, click here), partly because theres not much new to say, and partly because Ive been trying to figure out how I feel about it.
Short version: Israeli intel showed a major terrorist leaders location, and they sent an F-16 to take him out with what is variously described as a bomb or missile. Whatever it was, it got the bad guy and leveled his apartment building, killing 14 others, including women and children.
Ive turned my head when Israel has assassinated Palestinian terrorists; its a dirty war as all wars are. And there is a part of me that genuinely roots for the Israelis to simply wipe out the bastards who are sending Palestinian youth to blow themselves and innocents up in Israel.
But Ive always been uncomfortable with it.
Ive talked in the past with friends who argue for war by assassination
make the political leaders backing the war as vulnerable as the scared kids they send to the front lines, they say. And theres something to that.
And in the Israelis defense, their enemies dont exactly live on bases, surrounded by uniformed military, and drive vehicles with distinguishing markings, as contemplated by the Geneva Convention.
And now
to blow up a building to get the one guy inside it…seems like a dangerous thing for the Israelis to do.
Lets be clear. It would take Israel two, maybe three hours to demolish every structure in the West Bank and Gaza. The limit would be how fast they could rearm and turn around the aircraft. They could do it with conventional munitions and would easily have enough left over to defeat the armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan and mount a credible threat to the Iranians.
They havent. Why? Because they have to live with themselves, and because they are smart enough to realize that they ultimately have to live with their neighbors. The fact that they would mightily piss off the United States might factor into that as well.
So how do I feel about this? Confused, unhappy. The Israelis have the high moral ground exactly because everyone knows they could flatten Palestinian-administered territories and havent.
That moral capital is worth something, even in the face of all the anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli sentiment abroad in the world.
So how do I feel?? Confused, concerned. Glad they got him, and sad they didnt get him in another way. Sad that they have to get him at all.
For some other views, check out Protein Wisdom in support and Jeff Cooper not.
Date: 07/26/2002 00:00:00 AM
Terminus,The post below is for you. I forgot to put your name at the top.
Date: 07/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
Every thing you say begs the question, Eric. Everything. If we could establish that the West Bank is somehow Arab land under occupation by Israelis (and so therefore “under seige” by an oppressive “foreign presence”), there wouldn’t be a dispute. But of course the land is not Arab land, it’s Israeli land, acquired in a defensive war. So your premise is faulty. Which troubles your arguments to no end. Here’s the historical lesson at issue: If you don’t want to lose “your” land, don’t risk losing it by attacking your neighbors. The PLO’s charter (established in 1964 — years before the 6 Day War) explicitly called for the destruction of the Jewish state. So this nonsense about freedom fighters battling heroically for the return of “their” lands is tiresome and disingenuous. Fully half of the Palestinian population still envisions as its goal the annihilation of Israel. Half. And 67% polled think that suicide bombings — the deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians (including 5-year olds shot point blank in their beds) — is a desirable and legitimate strategy.At some point there need to be repercussions for holding such views and for carrying out such attacks on your neighbors. For 10 years, the P.A. has had self rule. Since Oslo, the Palestinian economy has collapsed and constant anti-semitic indoctrination and incitements to violence have created a death cult — perhaps marginal in number (vis-a-vis the Palestinian population, though I tend to doubt this)– but certainly front-and-center in representing the Palestinian “negotiating” strategy.You say that it is up to Israel to create its own security; I couldn’t agree more. Wiping out this Hamas monster was a start. Hamas, after all, has vowed never to stop targeting Israelis. And now, one of the orchestrators of the terror campaign — a man with experience, connections, etc. — has been forcibly removed from the game. Innocent people die in wars. Israel has a mandate to protect its own citizens. Caught up in the difficult moral calculus of war, they chose to take the shot that killed Shehadeh. Personally, I’m not sure they should have — but that’s a different issue from whether or not they have the right to do so in a time of war. And there is no doubt that Hamas has declared war on Israel. At least, none that I know of.
Date: 07/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
terminus: then you are also concerned about reports of civilian casualties in afghanistan? (if this should be obvious to me, i apologize, haven’t followed your postings). i tend to agree with you in one way, but i also have a great deal of sympathy for the israelis. my main concern is our collective PC hypocricy, i.e. our prez saying “do as i say, not as i do” and i probably didn’t make that point at all.
Date: 07/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
Why do we call it “targeted killing?” Let’s just call them assassinations. That’s what they are.I don’t have much of a problem with them. Hamas, IJ, Al Aqsa, they have to go for a real peace process to occur, and just as importantly for a truly democratic Palestine to emerge. My main issue here is with the choice of an F-16 and a 1,200-lb. bomb that levelled at least THREE buildings. All of the children and most of the civilian casualties were either in other buildings apart from the target or in the street. Ha’aretz reports that the choice was the result of the IDF making an assumption that only this bomb would destroy the target, from another airstrike utilizing missiles elsewhere that failed to totally destroy that target. The IDF assured politicians that the 1-ton bomb would not cause significant civilian casualties, which beggars belief given the conditions in Gaza. I’m not sure is this just the politicians using the IDF as cover (Sharon was exulting one day and saying that it was a mistake the next? What do you think he would be saying if Bush had given the thumbs-up to the attack?) or a genuine story, but that’s what the IDF is putting out there.
Date: 07/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
Yes, SKB, I’m very concerned about the civilian casualties in Afghanistan, but it’s a slightly different situation. I mean, sure errors were made which resulted in the tragic deaths of innocent people, which should be of concern to anyone. But, as far as I know (which is limited, admittedly) the civilian casualties in Afghanistan are mainly bad intelligence/fog of war type stuff. The people firing the weapons thought they were firing at enemies, in many cases, but were tragically mistaken. The situation in Gaza is a little different. There were no errors made. The target was hit with the weapon that was chosen. But it was a weapon which, when fired into an area such as it was, was certain to kill non-targets. Civilians are killed by every side in every war. It’s a fact of modern warfare, sadly. But there are various reasons for it, which justify it to a greater or lesser extent. Errors of judgement, errors of intelligence, that sort of thing, if perfectly understandable. Crass disregard for human life is harder to condone.Still, I’m not saying the Israelis are evil. Far from it. They are clearly the victims in the overall conflict (I’m just not certain that the Palestinians aren’t also the victims). I just wanted to say that I’m glad the international community (and Bush, for a change) registered their disapproval for the tactics used, and I’m glad that Sharon (for a change) expressed regrets (even if they were, as Henry suggested, disingenuous). I consider the matter closed.
Date: 07/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
Wonder what our reaction would be if it had been Osama bin Laden in the house and it was an American fighter jet?
Date: 07/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
Hamas is not above using innocents as shields. If Israel refuses to use weapons whenever there is a chance that innocents might be hurt, they will not be able to defend themselves at all.On the other hand, wanton disregard for innocent lives is also unacceptable. It’s an ugly, messy situation no matter how it is approached.Of course, in either case Israel is still morally superior to Hamas, who are perfectly up-front about the fact that killing innocent Israelies in their primary goal.Terminus, I have one minor quibble with what you wrote:”reports, unreliable as all news from the region is, that suggest that the Palestinians are getting the point, and were on the verge of agreeing to a cease-fire agreement.”If Hamas leaders had made statements to that effect before the bombing, I might be inclined to take it seriously. But coming after the bombing we must conclude that they are simply milking the situation for maximum effect. I’ll believe that they want a cease-fire when they stop firing.
Date: 07/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
This is moral equivalance of the worst sort. How can you compare the actions of a people under siege, with a foreign presence on their land with the clear intention of maintaining power on that land at the expense of the land’s owners, with the actions of a country operating outside of its internationally recognized borders? To put it another way: Palestinians are fighting for their rights, for self-government, and for freedom. The Israelis are fighting mostly to maintain their grip on land that does not belong to them. If security were really the issue, Israel would declare a border, build a fence, and evacuate the settlements. True, there are those on the Palestinian side that are also fighting for ‘all’ of Israel, but as the far stronger party (as noted in this post), it is up to Israel to create its own security. The measures it is taken now are not designed to enhance that security, but rather to maintainc ontrol of the west bank.
Date: 07/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
Joel, that’s why I said the reports were unreliable.SKB, I would have reacted exactly the same if it had been bin Laden. It’s not that I’m upset at the civilian casualites, though, of course, I am. It’s that the method chosen by the Israelis to accomplish the assassination was guaranteed to kill civilians (and I don’t care what their political beliefs are, children are civilians right up until the moment they fire a gun at you). They should have found another way.Rupe, while I certainly respect your opinion that “war crime” is an oxymoron, and I’m even sympathetic to it, it is, in simple point of fact, wrong. Thanks to the moral leadership of this country after the Second World War, there are such things as war crimes, and they can be prosecuted and punished. This is a matter of international law, not subject to your, or anyone else’s, moral views. No doubt you would disagree with any prosecution under international war crimes laws. That’s fine. But to say that there is no such thing as war crimes is no different, and no less incorrect, then saying there’s no such thing as theft.
Date: 07/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
Terminus,In my opinion, ?war crime? is an oxymoron. War is a state of affairs in which there is no law, and thus no crime. If the two sides decide to voluntarily restrain themselves, striking only under certain conditions or at specific targets, there could be some ?rules.? But these ?rules? are valid only insofar as both sides agree to adhere to them. The Palestinians do not adhere to the ?rules? of war, so there is absolutely no reason why the Israelis should. Although I do agree that attacks should avoid targeting ?innocents,? I don?t agree that those killed were necessarily innocent. A few intellectuals and dissidents aside, the terrorist attacks have extremely high levels of support among the Palestinian people. This is confirmed by polls, by the translations available at MEMRI.org, and by the fact the ?innocents? help lead troops into booby traps and other dangerous situation. The terrorists have complete control over whether civilians are targeted or not. If they want to protect the ?innocents,? they can wear uniforms like a normal army. This is why armies wear uniforms in the first place. Their refusal to wear uniforms, enabling them to blend into the civilian population, renders the entire population fair game. I don?t advocate bombing civilian targets just to kill civilians, but if civilians are in the way, whose fault is it?I do not agree that the Palestinians, apart from the intellectuals I spoke of, were really about to stop the killing. Please see Den Beste?s comments at http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/07/Hamasvowsrevenge.shtml
Date: 07/24/2002 00:00:00 AM
In a typical war, there is a valid distinction between civilians and the military, but in Palestine there isn’t. Is there really a substantive difference between the members of, say, Hamas, and those who knowingly aid and abet them? The latter group comprises a large portion of the Palestinian population. If Israel is restricted to striking only “members” of terrorist organizations, all that will happen is that more and more of the terrorist activities will be undertaken by “civilians” who hold no official membership. (After all, hiding terrorists is not much different from being a terrorist). If Israel keeps up this latest strategy, as I hope it will, the realization may dawn on some people that the terrorists and their sympathizers are merely magnets for pain and trouble and should be avoided at all cost.
Date: 10/18/2002 00:00:00 AM
Rupe:”If Israel keeps up this latest strategy, as I hope it will, the realization may dawn on some people that the terrorists and their sympathizers are merely magnets for pain and trouble and should be avoided at all cost. “What troubles me is those reports, unreliable as all news from the region is, that suggest that the Palestinians are getting the point, and were on the verge of agreeing to a cease-fire agreement. Also, it’s one thing to pursue a legitimate military goal and, in so doing, unintentionally kill a bunch of civilians. It’s not good thing, certainly, but it’s something that has been accepted as an unavoidable, regrettable, aspect of war. But it’s something else to employ as a means of assassination a method which is absolutely guaranteed to kill innocents. I think Israel deserved the condemnation it got, and I was happy to hear Sharon express regret.
Rupe wrote “In a typical war, there is a valid distinction between civilians and the military, but in Palestine there isn’t. Is there really a substantive difference between the members of, say, Hamas, and those who knowingly aid and abet them? The latter group comprises a large portion of the Palestinian population. If Israel is restricted to striking only “members” of terrorist organizations, all that will happen is that more and more of the terrorist activities will be undertaken by “civilians” who hold no official membership. (After all, hiding terrorists is not much different from being a terrorist). If Israel keeps up this latest strategy, as I hope it will, the realization may dawn on some people that the terrorists and their sympathizers are merely magnets for pain and trouble and should be avoided at all cost.”
This of course is precisely the argument of suicide bombers killing civilian Israelis. In their view less than 20% of Israelis are non-combatants because in fact almost all of them are temporarily soldiers as well and the others actively support them. Once you embark on this argument, you are on a highway to hell.
Ever more credible reports I hear of severe abuses by Israeli military and police, arbitrary humiliation and destruction have increasingly made me feel that the difference between a regular army (i.e. disciplined – young frustrated soldiers need control) and the terror group is being blurred over there.
Confusion is probably the right word.
As neither Jewish nor Muslim, of German descent (=pro-Israeli) living in Britain (=pro Palestinian) I am probably as neutral as one can be in this conflict.
More and more I have a feeling of watching a drug gang warfare: either side is as bad as the other and we others just hope the police will be able to stop them.
Only, there is no police and the gangs are too powerful in any case.
I doubt that today around the world in many people’s eyes Israel still ‘has the moral high ground’ as Armed Liberal thinks. This is unfortunately no longer the case.
I remember as a boy during the 1967 war, the general mood in Germany for instance being totally and enthusiastically on Israel’s side. This was the case through the 1970s, waned in the 1980s, disappeared in the 1990s and has led to horrified silence in the present.
In Britain the mood was always pro-Palestinian. This is because Britian is the reverse of Germany: their historical bad conscience is for the Palestinians whom they robbed of their homeland to give it to the Jews at no cost for Britain.
The amazing thing is: the entire world is staring at this small piece of land. Everyone has an opinion.