The following is on Jerry Haber’s great site, Magnes Zionist: his summary of a letter that has been leaked widely. It is a stunner: eight former students of Moshe Halbertal dispute his attack on the Goldstone Report in the New Republic. Note that many of these students appear to be Israeli. (Assaf Sharon was my guide on demonstration day in the Territories, last week). When will Americans take up this battle, bringing our values to the issue of slaughtering civilians?
From Magnes Zionist:
Response to Prof. Halbertal’s Article on the Goldstone Report – From Eight of His Former Students
Last week I received a copy of a letter addressed to Moshe Halbertal by eight of his former students, most of whom are junior faculty in philosophy or philosophy doctoral candidates in Israel and the US. The letter, a long response to Halbertal’s article attacking the Goldstone Report in the New Republic, was sent me by a colleague, who received it from an email distribution list. (The letter had been intended to be private, but it was leaked to somebody who sent it on the list.)
After making inquiries I learned that Halbertal had invited the authors to discuss the matter with him, and that there indeed was a meeting. I do not know whether Prof. Halbertal plans to write a response. In the meantime, I have received permission to make public parts of the letter. Since it is long, I will try to paraphrase the gist of the argument. This may seem unfair and one-sided, and it is certainly no substitute for an accurate translation. I also have no doubt that Prof. Halbertal’s response would be an important contribution to the debate. But the original letter stands on its own, and so I communicate its contents here.
The “Letter to Moshe Halbertal” begins as follows:
Your article in the New Republic, an attack on the Goldstone Report, surprised and disturbed us. We feel obligated to lay before you our objections and our criticism in a direct manner. The immediate subject of the article is the Goldstone Report, which is portrayed as biased and fundamentally flawed. But it is difficult to escape the impression that in doing so you justify, after the fact, the pretext for the Gaza war, as well as its manner of conduct, without the qualifications that we consider vital.
The authors first comment on Halbertal’s discussion of the transformation in Israel’s defense strategy wrought by asymmetric warfare. That discussion emphasizes the difficulties and limitations that a conventional army has in fighting “terrorists”, a move that strikes the authors as an attempt to diminish the real military advantage that the IDF possesses and to play upon the feelings of victimhood among Israelis. Such claims tend to ignore the connection between the asymmetry of conditions of warfare and the asymmetry in the power relations. Would it be a fairer, more symmetric, fight if Hamas had tanks and aircraft? The article accuses Hamas of not distinguishing between civilians and soldiers. Yet most of the IDF’s chief military installations are located in the midst of civilian areas, including the Central Command in Tel-Aviv. Would that justify Hamas firing rockets on urban areas? The same article mentions Hamas attacks on buses and cafes, but what does that have to do with Cast Lead, since most of these attacks did not originate in Gaza, had ceased for years before the Gaza campaign and were cliaimed by nobody to be the cause of the campaign?
The article claims that one has two alternatives when confronting asymmetric warfare: either to refuse to defend oneself against terrorist attacks or to fight without limitations against the enemy’s populace. But that, according to the authors of the letter, is a false dilemma. Most of those who opposed the Gaza campaign are not pacifists, and do not deny Israel’s right to self-defense. What they deny is the justification of all military activity in the name of security, and the separation of the war on terror from the broader political context; they question whether there were alternatives to military action. “Rejecting both extremes for the sake of pursuing a policy that is both militarily necessary and exceedingly cautious with respect to civlian life is still quite far from justifying a military offensive like Operation Cast Lead."
According to Halbertal, “Israel’s goal in its struggle with Hamas and Hezbollah is to reverse their attempt to strengthen themselves politically by means of their morally bankrupt strategy. Rather than being drawn into a war of all against all and everywhere, Israel has sought to isolate the militants from their environment: to mark them and “clothe” them with a uniform, and to force them to a definite front.” The authors note that this description of isolating the militants from their environment bears no resemblance at all to what is known about the Operation Cast Lead, or the IDF’s methods in Gaza in the last few years, which include the widespread destruction of infrastructure, houses, the siege and the limitations on imports, and the deliberate attempts to frighten the civilian population. To say that the former is the goal according to which the IDF operated, and to write off the collective punishment of the siege on Gaza as “ethically problematic and strategically unproductive” appears at the very least insufficient.
The second part of the article deals with the principles of just war and how they are reflected in the IDF Ethical Code. The first principle is that of military necessity, which holds that the use of force should be only as much as is militarily necessary. Halbertal admits in the article that the application of this principle in the case of asymmetric warfare is “problematic,” but that does not excuse him from examining every military mission, including those cited in the report. It seems to the authors that this principle was violated more than once during the campaign, and if that is the case, then the criticism of the IDF in the Goldstone report is justified.
The second principle is that of the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. This too is difficult, but not only for the IDF. A large number of the soldiers are civilians who may be called up to fight. Does that justify attacking them in their homes (as the terrorists claim)? Or when they are on military leave? And what about the IDF’s attack on the Hamas policemen? Contrary to what Halbertal writes, the Goldstone report did not consider them to be non-combatants, but rather that they were not part of the Hamas fighting organization against Israel. The Goldstone report mentions the IDF’s claim to the contrary, but no evidence has been provided for that claim. What should the Goldstone panel have done; accepted the IDF spokesperson’s word on the issue? After all, the IDF spokesperson has a credibility gap, considering the performance over the last few years.
The third principle is proportionateness. Here Halbertal cites Moshe Yaalon’s claim that had the IDF known that Salah Shahadeh was surrounded by civilians, they would not have bombed his house. He does not cite Dan Halutz’s defense of the bombing, or Yaalon’s praise of the bombers (“You did good work; you can sleep at ease during the night.”) He does not cite the more recent case of Nizar Riyan, who was killed together with fifteen civilians, members of his family, and which was justified by the IDF on the grounds that they were warned. So this gave the IDF a license to kill them?
The article criticizes the Goldstone Report criticism of “roof knocking,” but misses the point that the warning was useless since the residents had nowhere safe to flee to. In order to refute the criticism, Halbertal should have cited cases where the roof-knocking was effective and not dangerous. But in any event, merely warning the civilians did not excuse the IDF from adhering to the principle of distinction. A non-combatant does not lose his status because he has not fled his house.
The article justifies the shelling of houses in order to minimize casualties to the IDF. But the cases described in the report included those in which there were no danger to the IDF. In some of those cases, the IDF issued contradictory statements. Halbertal completely ignores the statements of IDF generals and Israeli politicians that said that disproportionate damage was an aim of the war in order to teach Hamas and the population a lesson. One cannot examine the question of proportionality without understanding th goals of the mission. If one of the goals was to destroy the motivation of the Hamas fighters and their supporters, then the search for proportionality is a fruitless one.
The authors then echo my criticism of Halbertal’s view that had the Goldstone report focused just on Gaza, the IDF would have had to respond. In fact, the IDF condemned and dismissed every human rights report on Gaza, including the one by the veterans’ group, Breaking the Silence.
Halbertal criticized the report’s decision to include the background to the Gaza campaign, and considered that presentation slanted. But Halbertal’s presentation is no less slanted. Is the only purpose of the wall snaking through Palestinian territory Israeli security? Even the Israeli High Court rejected that claim, when it said that the route was determined in part in order to absorb territory for West Bank settlements. And while Halbertal criticizes this part of the Goldstone report as biased and irrelevant, he provides his own background which is no less biased: Sharon withdrew from Gaza, Olmert wished to continue the withdrawal; all this was spoiled by the Kassam rockets. This completely ignores the fact that the peace process and the disengagement was accompanied by an incessant deepening of the Occupation by all Israeli governments. Is it possible to detach Operation Cast Lead from the continual expansion of settlements and outposts, the theft of Palestinian land, the expulsion of people from their homes, the destructions of homes, the targeted assassination, detentions without trial, restrictions on freedom of the prevention of movement, the unfair allotment of water, prevention of the right to be education? All these abuses have been well-documented by Israel human rights NGOs. If Goldstone’s presentation is slanted, then Halbertal’s is no less so – including his decision to start the historical narrative from the disengagement from Gaza. Why choose this date? The answer in the article is that from that time Gaza was no longer occupied is unacceptable; yet according to many experts and organizations this is not the case. Why didn’t Halbertal cite the remark of Dove Weisglass who said that the purpose of the disengagement was to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. Most astonishing is the failure to mention all the other IDF campaigns in Gaza after the disengagement: “First Rain,” “Southern Arrow” “Summer Rains”, etc., etc. and the fact that the IDF killed 1273 Gazans, among whom 522 uninvolved civilians (236 minors) , between the disengagement of Gaza and the onset of Cast Lead. Failure to mention the above creates the false impression that Israel adopted a hands-off policy of military restraint in the face of Kassam rocket fire from the disengagement to Cast Iron, and that the Hamas chose to fire rockets only because of an implacable and inexplicable hatred. And even if that were true, how can one explain Israel’s separation of the West Bank from Gaza despite its commitments to the contrary.
In this context it is also surprising that the article fails to discuss the question of the necessity of going to war. Even if the article focuses on the Goldstone Report (which did not question Israel’s decision to go to war), anybody who writes as an Israeli should discuss the legitimacy of the goals of the war (unclear to this very day), and of the means taken to achieve them. According to some Israeli leaders, the goal of the war was to eliminate Hamas. Wat this a legitimate goal. And the goal was to stop the Kassam rockets, were any less-deadly alternative courses of action feasible or possible? Isn’t it necessary to mention the cease-fire that had reduced the firing of rockets to a trickle, until Israel unilaterally violated it by killing ten Hamas men in one weekend? Is the South genuinely safer now because of the campaign, and if so, for how long?
The article characterizes Goldstone’s claim that Israel deliberately targeted civilians as false and slanderous. But it ignores entirely the evidence, including the statements by Israeli politicians, that the Goldstone Report adduces to support the claim. Is it sufficient just to reject Goldstone’s evidence and conclusions out of hand? And what of the number of civilians killed?
On the latter point the article raises one of its strangest claims: “Since the relation of soldiers to civilians in Gaza was one to 150, then any larger relation in terms of soldiers to fatalities indicates that there was no intention to deliberately harm civilians." In other words, any action which was more careful than random shooting would be justified. But will we absolve the Hamas from responsibility if it can be shown that the relation between soldiers that killed and their victims is greater than the relation of civilians to soldiers in Israel?
The last part of the article treats some of the abuses documented in the report as isolated incidents that should be investigated, and not as well-documented abuses that were part of a systematic war policy. Halbertal is convinced that there was no such policy, although he never gives any reason why he is convinced, nor does he rebut the Goldstone report’s evidence to the contrary. The many proofs of unnecessary and even criminal brutality – firing on civilians, destruction as a means of collective punishment, the use of illegal weapons, the deliberate frightening of the civilian population – merit at best a skeptical approach, and at worst, avoidance. Halbertal’s call to investigate completely ignores the fact that the IDF has ceased investigating Palestinian claims against soldiers since 2000. The call to investigate isolated cases avoids confronting the possibility of their being instances of broader policies.
Finally, it is impossible to avoid providing a more general evaluation of the article and its composition. It seems that political, ethical, and legal questions turn into “dilemmas” that emphasize the soul-searching of the individual soldier who goes out to battle (and the philosopher who serves his spiritual advisor) and blur the consequences of his actions. The historical and political context is brought in accordance with apologetic needs, whereas central facts – the repeated attacks in Gaza after the disengagement, the effective control in a region that has never ceased, the violation of the Cease Fire in the early part of November –are hidden or distorted beyond recognition. The concept of asymmetric warfare provides you with a sweeping justification of the IDF’s actions without mentioning the general context and basic asymmetry that is built into it.
Your article only asks how much the IDF ethical code was implemented. You accept without question the necessity of going to war because you accept without question the IDF and the Israeli public’s acceptance of the necessity of waging a war on terror. But some questions need to be asked: What led to the breakdown of the cease-fire? Could it not be renewed? Were there legitimate goals beyond revenge and giving the public what it wanted? Even when you argue with the report about context and background, you do not doubt for a moment the establishment’s version of the events, in which the operation is portrayed as a defensive move against an aggressive neighbor and is completely removed from its historical context of occupation and control.
Most of all, we speak out against the distortion of the role of the engaged intellectual in your decision to publish this article in this journal at this time. What sorts of things should one cry out against? Can one sit in silence while the IDF has carried out, and continues to carry out, all sorts of injustices in the context of the occupation and its associated activities, and cry out only against somebody who criticizes these actions? If you think that the siege on Gaza is wrong, then why didn’t you protest against it in public? If you claim that there are incidents that should be investigated, then why did you wait until the Goldstone report was published, and then in order to defend Israel from it, for you to come out in favor of an investigation?
You know as well as we do that was are not talking merely about a public expression of a position. The actions of the IDF in Gaza would not have occurred without the legal and moral support of publications such as yours. In this regard it is impossible not to protest against the hekhsher that you have given to the killing of the traffic police at the outset of the campaign. The army may still use this “certificate of kashrut” that you have granted them in future campaigns. At a time when the Occupation continues in full force, when civilians are killed and maimed daily, when theft, expulsion, and injustice under the auspices of the state increase daily, we find it hard to believe how you choose to take defend the government who is responsible for all this against those who think otherwise.
The letter is signed: Yuval Ayalon, Amir Angel, Jonathan Ya’ari, Oded Neeman, Levi Spector, Avner Inbar, Yoav Kani, Yishai Rosen Tzvi, Assaf Sharon
I didn’t read the original article, and likely won’t.
To this article I have a few comments:
1. Criticism of the Goldstone report’s methodology, scope, connection of conclusions in the report (and inferred by dissent) is NOT equivalent or even implies acceptance of Operation Cast Lead, at specific decision points.
2. The only valid inquiry that a dissenter can make to an operation is of decision-points. “In this situation, this person with this responsibility made the following decisions that were under his/her control, and they are criticized as follows:”
The end-result is not accurately criticizable, only the decision-points are. Certainly the end result is enormously affected by decisions in the field, but what turns out in retrospect to be a wrong decision (the scope of war to engage in) is a different decision than was made in the then present.
The difference between retrospect (Monday morning quarterbacking) and evaluation of actual decisions (that can include reasonable projections of likely outcomes of one’s decisions).
The valid points in the critique that I see are of the scale of the operation, and clarification of the objectives. That is parallel to the criticisms of the Lebanon war, and indicate a common Israeli failure to articulate a clear and successful strategy against enemies that undertake similar methodologies, with similar criteria of success, and similar means of attaining political credibility.
I believe that the decision to respond militarily (and beyond a token response) to the reinitiation of shelling of Israeli civilians from Hamas after the cease-fire ended, was a responsible one on the part of the IDF, justifiable by both international law and common and progressive discourse on “just war”.
To do nothing on the part of the IDF would be criminal, a negligence to defend civilians.
As frustrating as it is for dissenters, of whatever nationality or ethnicity, Monday morning quarterbacking is opportunism.
In this case, Hamas initiated a status of war (distinct from a status of cease-fire, and distinct from a status of skirmish – November 4 and following). Israel responded at a scale that was excessive.
The political setting of Hamas solidarity with West Bank arrests, or siege resulting from its status of declared war with Israel and active aggressions towards both Israel and Egypt (thereby isolating itself), is irrelevant to the question of shelling civilians. There is no basis of justification for that effort.
Israel’s legitimacy is not in question from this. Its reasoning and strategy is in question, and should be raised.
Hopefully, its reasoning and strategies will continue to be raised. Hopefully, Hamas will proceed towards reconciliation with Fatah, establishment of a single government in development capable of living as a good neighbor to Israel. Hopefully, the settlement expansion will cease (apparently requiring US more assertive intervention).
Hopefully a moderate liberal party will emerge in Israel that is sufficiently disciplined and coherent to challenge the rightward leaning absent an organized liberal Israeli movement.
You realize, of course, that nine out of ten blog-watchers stopped reading your entry after that confession.
I’m the tenth who did. Trust me, the rest of you made the right decision.
And in all seriousness, RW didn’t even respond to the letter Phil quotes. To the extent that there are points in RW’s gibberish, they are already refuted in the letter written by Halbertal’s students. Which is why it’s not just a joke to say you’d be wasting your time reading Witty’s post.
So clarify your understanding, and your differences.
Its trivial to just adopt character assassination and boycott instead of argument.
Summarize the arguments if you like.
Because Witty holds the copyright on character assassination. Just ask Goldstone. You haven’t ever bothered to even read that either, I take it?
What the hell are you saying, Witty? Once again, you speak gibberish to stall/divert. [epithet deleted by webmaster]
Richard, it’s Phil’s blog and he put up this letter. You come along and respond, but your response, quite typically, ignores the content to which you are allegedly responding. Halbertal’s students go into some detail about why the Gaza War was wrong and you didn’t bother to quote any of it and refute it.
Which is how you usually respond to detailed posts–by ignoring the details. And then when I point this out, you put the burden on me to summarize. If I took the bait, you would then ignore what I typed.
The post does a superb job laying out the issues. If you disagree with it, then quote the portions you think are wrong and explain why.
This is the the part where Witty quietly slithers away and moves on to the next thread to troll (hit and run).
Incidentally, I too was given a challenge by Witty.
Regarding the ethnic cleansing operations in 48′.
He asked me to give some historical evidence.
I cited 5 different authors. Gave a link to their biographies, and a link to their books on Amazon.com.
He never replied to me. It was then drowned out.
I’m really beginning to wonder if he’s just getting paid to troll blogs w/ a anti-Zionist slant (wasn’t there a Haaretz article reporting that Israel was paying people to troll?).
Cliff, you’re spot-on. If you wonder why all of sudden Mondoweiss is being flooded with newbies like Yonira and Einstein says, it’s likely to be part of an initiative launched in July 2009 to flood the comments and talkback sections of pro-peace websites with hasbara and distracting personal attacks. Here’s the article from YNet:
link to ynetnews.com
Mondoweiss is not immune to the air assault of organized hasbara and Nbka-denials, in fact, as the “War of Words” heats up, Mondo will be a prime target. Fasten your seatbelts and engage the anti-Hasbara b.s. shields.
For example:
Wonder if that respondent was R. Witty?
I think it is also related to the success of the site. The more readers it attracts, the more Zionist trolls and outright nutcases it will also attract.
Nah, I think for Witty it’s much more personal. He’s trying to save Mr. and Mrs. Weiss’s little boy, Phil, from the clutches of anti-Zionism.
“Just one more of my cogent epistles” he hopes as he writes, “and he’ll come around”
And muses on collecting his posts in a book.
Witty responds to a students’ substantive letter criticism of their former teacher’s published criticism of the Goldstone report by not reading the Goldstone report, not addressing its content, not reading the teacher’s published criticism of the Goldstone report, not addressing its content, and not responding to the content of the former students’ letter except by calling it analogous to monday morning quarter-backing–and not addressing its content. End result: The teacher blesses
the Gaza turkey shoot in print. Witty does the same, after first saying he is not doing so. Would that Witty had a thimble full of the honesty and integrity those students have. Their letter is very informative, as is the Goldstone Report. Thank you too, Phil, for this article.
LOL. Bingo! Did you know Witty, growing up?
I meant this to be directed to Mooser.
LOL Chaos4700, I almost missed your comment because I was scrolling down quickly to the next root comment.
You are full of BS as always, Dick. You didn’t read the entire article (predictable) and you still haven’t read the Goldstone report either. You have no credibility.
The only valid inquiry that a dissenter can make to an operation is of decision-points……The end-result is not accurately criticizable, only the decision-points are.
according to you. you would like to limit the scope of area that is valid to critique.
The valid points in the critique that I see are of the scale of the operation, and clarification of the objectives
they did that in this letter. they critiqued the scale of operation, and the objectives. and you chose to ignore that critique.
what turns out in retrospect to be a wrong decision (the scope of war to engage in) is a different decision than was made in the then present.
so what if they are different? you are playing word games. it was a wrong decision at every step of the way and your caveat of ‘in retrospect’ serves only to shield people from responsibility w/the inference they could not or did not realize it was a bad decision at the onset. if i murder someone and say to you..’in retrospect it was a wrong decision and that is different than what i thought at the time’ would that make me less culpable? yet you say it is valid critique the scale and objectives, while no one needed to rely on retrospect oir monday morning quarterbacking to know the results because you yourself referenced the parallel to lebanon which was a huge failure. but then there was a decision made to legalize the same strategy?? yes there was, called the Dahiya Doctrine. so do not give me this ‘in resprospect’. i could continue going thru your post like this pointing out the bullshit w/every line practically. you did’t address specifics in the letter, you highjacked instead telling us what you saw as valid..without even reading the source document.
The strategy of clearing wide paths for a ground operation was a rational strategy against an expected guerilla Hamas.
But, Hamas and other factions went underground. It was an adept strategy in ways, but exposed Gazan civilians, rather than attempted to defend them.
“‘”It was an adept strategy in ways, but exposed Gazan civilians, rather than attempted to defend them. “‘
How would you gsugegst they defend the Gaza civlians against F-16′s. Witty? Israel and it’s accomplises in teh west won’t allow Hamas to source any weapons to do so.
In this case, Hamas initiated a status of war (distinct from a status of cease-fire, and distinct from a status of skirmish – November 4 and following). Israel responded at a scale that was excessive.
is this a joke? invading gaza and killing 10 people is a skirmish and the onset of rockets as a result of israel breaking the ceasefire is a hamas initiating a status of war? you are a joke dick.
Moreover, annie, (re: January 13, 2010 at 1:13 pm) morally reprehensible.
It was a skirmish. The status of the alleged tunnels remains ambiguous, not certain.
It could have been an intentional provocation using the story as a fraud. It could have been an actual observation compelling a difficult decision whether to risk the cease-fire spinning out or not. It could have been true and a skillful preemptive avoidance of something worse.
The number of killed initially increases as time goes by. Facts, interpretations, or stories.
Excuse me? The IDF flies jets overhead and drops bombs against a population that doesn’t even have anti-aircraft defenses, let alone their own air force, and that’s a skirmish?
How fast do you think they were building the tunnel? Really, Witty, do the Palestinians have cartoon shovels? Assuming a tunnel was being built at all?
Racism yet again. Every attack by a Palestinian must be a provocation, yet every attack by an Israeli must be given the benefit of the doubt.
“‘It was a skirmish. The status of the alleged tunnels remains ambiguous, not certain.”‘
Israel has killed about a dozen Palestinians from routine bombing and this is supposed to be during a ceasefire. And when Hamas do retaliate, you will be blaming them for the “‘escalation” and arguing that their response proves they are itching for a fight.
Richard, you need to read “Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free ” by Charles P. Pierce
The interview on the Amazon listing is a hoot in light of comments here. Pierce notes: Remember that perception is not reality, that opinion, no matter how widely held, is not fact.
I commented on what I differed with and thought was relevant.
You can describe why you think different perspectives are relevant. The comments section is a blank slate.
No, Witty, you are a blank slate. Are you still jealous of Mr. Weiss and Mr. Horowitz because there’s no way you could field your own blog and get visitors?
Hey, he needs a job. Maybe he could write a hasbara guide book for accountants?
Put all his bin epistles in it in fold-out spread sheet form?
“I commented on what I differed with and thought was relevant.”
Which evidently means that when other people write long pieces giving detailed arguments as to why Israel’s conduct was immoral, you feel that what they say is irrelevant and you just repeat your standard talking points. It’s how you always behave on this subject. It’s why any attempt at engaging you on the subject of Israeli war crimes is a waste of time, unless the person is writing for the rest of us and not trying to talk to you. In this case what Phil posted was extremely good–if you want to directly engage a very well written and well reasoned critique of Israel’s behavior in Gaza this is your chance. But you don’t.
Donald,
Why don’t you summarize the points of the original author (as he intended), and summarize the points of the critics, and then clarify which of those you think are important, and/or which were talking skew to the other, and how each of the positions is similar or different from yours.
My point 2 is the critical one. While there is some indication from some evidence as to what varying policy makers, engagement definers (or not), operational officers, soldiers did, most of the decision points are still unknown.
And, worse, intellectually at least, a large portion of dissent Monday morning quarterbacks. “Knowing that on third down, the defense held the line at short yardage, that second down play was the wrong one to call.”
In the case of Hamas, the expectation was of Lebanon style on the ground ambush resistance, requiring more extensive and destructive preparation for a ground assault. That didn’t bear out. Hamas hid, so they realized less kills (thankfully) which they would have otherwise taken credit for “heroically”, or in the case that they hid, the deaths were disproportionate and too much on civilians.
To my mind, the Israeli sin was after the Hamas hiding strategy was evident (but that was late), they continued with the significant ground assault strategy.
The policy decisions are visible and there are some obvious decision points that are critical.
I sincerely do believe that the November 4 incident was NOT an intentional break in the cease-fire but an earnest (even if mistaken) observation by a soldier (the orders to attack the suspected tunnel was given from the top).
And, I do believe that in December, the best strategy for Hamas would have been to patiently continue to the hudna until the borders were opened to prior levels. I sincerely believe that they couldn’t control their militant wings, nor of other militant factions, and caved in. It seemed hopeless to them, but that is because of the predominance of young “heroes” among the militants, rather than thoughtful social servants.
Why don’t you read the goddamn article for yourself, Witty?
And Witty, what part of “cease-fire” means that firing on people doesn’t cease? I don’t get it. Israel targeted hospitals, schools, mosques, EVEN UN FACILITIES. Still, you exonerate them from crimes. If Israelis really went the whole nine yards and had gas chambers, would you be wondering whether there was a very good reason for that, too?
I’m not going to summarize the post. I think any summary I make would be inferior to the original. I was tempted to paste in long sections, but that would be a waste of time, because it is right up there at the top of the thread.
“My point 2 is the critical one. While there is some indication from some evidence as to what varying policy makers, engagement definers (or not), operational officers, soldiers did, most of the decision points are still unknown.
And, worse, intellectually at least, a large portion of dissent Monday morning quarterbacks. ”
“Monday morning quarterbacking” is a stupid and offensive cliche to employ in this context–the killing of hundreds of civilians in a war clearly intended to punish the population of Gaza. I see the point of your point 2–it is to avoid confronting the detailed arguments of the authors and erect a new rule that says we can’t criticize what happened because maybe the Israelis could put forward some rationale that you would be willing to accept.
Israel has a pretty long history of bombing and shelling civilians. They did it in 1982 in Lebanon, in 1996 in Lebanon, in 2006 in Lebanon, and what happened in Gaza in 2009 was more of the same. By now, given the pattern, only an idiot would think their brutality was unintentional, even if we had no other evidence besides this. Your point 2 is an attempt at obfuscation. By claiming that dissenters can only criticize “decision points”, you attempt to wipe away what was actually done and put the burden of proof on “dissenters” who are supposed to refrain from judgment until the Israelis tell us what their reasoning was at every step in every detail. And of course we could count on them to be honest.
The piece above goes into detail about what the IDF did wrong and also refers to the evidence that the brutality was intentional. I said I wouldn’t cut and paste, but here’s one sentence—”Halbertal completely ignores the statements of IDF generals and Israeli politicians that said that disproportionate damage was an aim of the war in order to teach Hamas and the population a lesson. ” You ignore everything in the piece, instead choosing to tell us that the only legitimate criticism “dissenters” can make is of decision points. This is transparent nonsense. We have more than enough evidence to say that Israel intended to punish the population of Gaza. As far as a court of law is concerned, we would need more to be able to convict specific people, but that’s true of any nation or organization which has committed war crimes and before putting an individual in jail we want to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he or she is directly responsible. The same is true of Hamas–I don’t know which specific people within Hamas were guilty of planning suicide bombing attacks several years ago, but I don’t say that we can’t condemn Hamas until we know their “decision points”. Obviously Hamas as an organization was responsible, even if we may or may not know which specific people are guilty of crimes.
I note that by the end of your piece you’ve changed the subject yet again to why it is the fault of the Palestinians that the war happened, again ignoring the points made in the students’s letter. But then, you always do this. Change the subject from Israeli crimes (which we can’t criticize until they tell us their reasoning) and start blaming Palestinians, a group we know is guilty without needing to worry about “decision points”. I find your guesswork regarding internal Hamas politics plausible, but unfortunately it is part of your whitewashing of Israeli responsibility.
And again, this post (not mine, but the student letter) and your response is a perfect illustration of how you treat anyone who gives a detailed argument showing Israel is guilty of war crimes. Basically, you ignore everything that is said. It’s why good faith discussions with you, involving give and take, are impossible on this subject.
Witty,
Why don’t you summarize the points of the original author (as he intended), and summarize the points of the student critics, and then clarify which of those you think are important, and/or which were talking skew to the other, and how each of the positions is similar or different from yours? Gee, I mean actually read and respond
directly to the contents of each; hey, why don’t you read the Goldstone Report too?
Yuval Ayalon et al: On the latter point the article raises one of its strangest claims: “Since the relation of soldiers to civilians in Gaza was one to 150, then any larger relation in terms of soldiers to fatalities indicates that there was no intention to deliberately harm civilians. In other words, any action which was more careful than random shooting would be justified. But will we absolve the Hamas from responsibility if it can be shown that the relation between soldiers that killed and their victims is greater than the relation of civilians to soldiers in Israel?
This is a telling point given that most Israeli men and many women are active and active reserve members of the IDF. Israel conscripts both men and women. Presumably the proportion is made even higher with consideration of their inactive reserve list. The ratio of military over civilian is vastly, vastly higher among Israelis than Palestinians.
The IDF ground force
Acceptance of Prof. Halbertal’s argument means acknowledgment that pretty much everything in Israel but child care centers and K-12 schools are legitimate targets, unless of course one does not recognize Palestinian humanity and ‘forget’ to hold both sides to the same standard. I reject this both for Israelis and Palestinians. He has either indulged in some careless thinking, or is a wacko. I applaud his students for challenging him, and it is very regrettable that their letter has become public. I hope their careers do not suffer for their courage.
The latest I’ve seen on Israeli Lobby espionage in America.
Feds: Accused scientist spy breached top-secret policy in ’02
Oh! Well, at least he was promptly routed and pulled away from all that sensitive information so that the threat to US national security was capped off swiftly and smartly, right? I mean, not just anybody can get government clearance, let alone keep it.
Oh…
Meanwhile, and though it’s a bit old news, the founders of the largest Muslim charity in the US are sentenced to 65 years in prison for the crime of helping needy Palestinians.
link to democracynow.org
So much for the idea of justice being blind, huh. Seems pretty color-sensitive to me.
For those who might be interested, another thorough and excellent response to Mohse Halbertal’s article in the New Republic by Jerome Slater can be found here:
link to pulsemedia.org
Yes, Slater’s article is acute. It even reveals how Goldstone treated Israel with kid gloves–for which he got slurred as a self-hating Jew and ignored by US congress; indeed, got slurred by US congress. Witty, of course, will not read Slater’s article.
i read some of halbertal’s article, not the whole thing. he begins with w/israels justification for the doctrine. he starts back at the beginning of the 90′s wrt to israels security needs but fails to address the primary reasons israel is threatened to begin with, the constant expansion and theft of land. obviously the way to enhance the security of israel is to eliminate the actions and policy that create the primary cause of hostility towards it…i mean if you are going back 20 years one might imagine mentioning the amount of land confiscated during that period. while he addressed goldstones reference to finding no evidence militants intentionally used civilians areas for shields he did not mention how goldstone came to that conclusion..which was the evidence suggested as the idf invaded and cleared areas evidence suggested militants moved into the area that had not been cleared, which would eventually lead to those civilian areas, thereby, according to him and israel justify targeting those areas, which israel then blames hamas. this we have heard over and over and is the ‘moral’ justification israel apologists have used repeatedly also accusing goldstone of NOT mentioning hamas commited war crimes by targeting israel from civilian area (as opposed to the war crime of targeting civilian areas, which goldstone did accuse hamas as doing). but, targeting from civilian areas is not a war crime, something israel has tried to change thru appeals to the international court. he also evades the obvious..that israel at no time provided the evacuation of civilians which it could have done. this would have eliminated th problem. even in fallujah, a massive criminal invasion the US military allowed for the evacuation of women and children.
lots of problems w/the new republic piece.
There is no beginning point, 20 years, 40 years, 60 years, 80 years.
The significance of going back to the 90′s was relative to Oslo (a great hope for moderate Israelis – majority and moderate – majority Palestinians), in which Hamas timed its gruesome terror attacks TO distract and distort reconciliation efforts.
The gross distrust of Hamas started then, and the rockets indicated that Hamas hadn’t changed its ideology or goal, but only incidentally changed its tactics.
And yet Israeli colonization of occupied territory has increased, significantly. It has never ceased. Not even during the Oslo Accords.
At least Hamas stopped firing rockets, which is more than can be said for Israel — the country of perpetual warfare against civilian populations.
And… because it always bears repeating when you trot out your stock of prevarications and false equivalences:
Reigniting Violence: How do Cease-Fires End?
There is no beginning point, 20 years, 40 years, 60 years, 80 years.
then he shouldn’t have chosen one. but since he did wouldn’t it have been prudent to mention israel’s action’s that precipitated (oh i forgot israel never precipitates, only responds) during any of this period as the students mentioned? goldstone didn’t go back to the suicide bombings. using 20 yrs old actions to justify cast lead is bullshit. israel went into a ceasefire w/bad intentions to use that time to plan a war while hamas largely respected the ceasefire. israels actions on the 4th were to give it pretense to invade, an action it had already decided to do. this whole crap about the 90′s in halbertal’s introduction is BS. and you know it. goldstone wasn’t task with investigating the history of israel/palestine’s violent behavior.
Goldstone was tasked to comment on the status of war, and DID indicate that Israel was in a war, hence the investigation into possible war crimes (not skirmish crimes), a status that was confirmed by Hamas being similarly investigated for war crimes (not skirmish crimes).
I don’t believe that political context justifies terror directed solely at civilians, do you?
“Skirmish crimes?” Do you honestly think you sound smart when you make shit up?
Goldstone was tasked to report on violent actions by both sides during a given timeline, in Gaza. One side used conscripted state military power; the other used a form of volunteer militia power. A war is a collection of skirmishes.
A skirmish is an engagement between small parties. A skirmish-level scenario or set of rules is one designed for small-scale battles, with each figure representing individual combatants or very small groups. The opposite of skirmish-level is epic-level. Seems to me Israel applies epic-level military might with a conscripted army and the full array of highly advanced weapons against a voluntary skirmish level Hamas (and all those Palestinian civilians) minor militia. And, in context, it is legal to resist a long and brutal occupation.
“‘The gross distrust of Hamas started then, and the rockets indicated that Hamas hadn’t changed its ideology or goal, but only incidentally changed its tactics. “‘
So firing harmless rockets means that Hamas are commited to an ideology, but dripping 500lb bombs, white phosphorous and depleted uranium rounds on Gaza is self defense.
Witty, you are a disgusting piece of work.
Pingback: Asymmetry Breast Augmentation Surgery « lasik laser surgery | Surgery Beauty Wisdom
What is happening?
* The current attacks on the Gaza Strip are all aimed at civilian areas. Other targets include Palestinian resistance positions.
* On Friday 1st, January 2010, the Israeli Air Force bombed two tunnels in the Gaza Strip. Palestinians depend on the tunnels for food, medicine and other necessities. Because of the illegal blockade imposed by the Occupier the tunnels have become their main lifeline for survival.
* On Saturday 2nd January two tanks fired shells into the area east of the Shuja’iyya neighbourhood of Gaza City and northeast of Gaza City, while military tanks launched several artillery shells at the Shuja’iyya and Tuffah neighborhoods simultaneously.
* On Tuesday, January 5th 2010, an Israeli airstrike hit a group of Palestinian resistance fighters in Khan Younis, in south Gaza Strip, killing one and wounding four others.
* On Thursday 7th January, Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) attacked the Rafah border area, killing three Palestinians, one of the causalities being a 14 year-old boy.
* Aerial strikes were also carried out in Gaza City, Khan Younis and Rafah, resulting in huge explosions.
* Earlier on Thursday, the Israel Air Force dropped thousands of leaflets over Gaza, warning residents to stay away from the border with Israel and to avoid involvement in ‘smuggling’.
* Israeli forces completed on 8th January a large-scale military exercise in the Negev, the country’s Channel 10 news reported these were in preparation for a military offensive against the Gaza Strip.
* An IDF strike east of Deir Al-Balah on Sunday 10th January 2010 has left three Palestinians dead, and four others injured.
Just business as usual, but according to Witty, it will be Hamas who is to blame for “escalating the conflict”.