The theory, explained by Jeff Halper:
The Israeli attack on Gaza in December 2008/January 2009 was not merely a military assault on a primarily civilian population, impoverished and the victim of occupation and besiegement these past 42 years. It was also part of an ongoing assault on international humanitarian law by a highly coordinated team of Israeli lawyers, military officers, PR people, and politicians, led by (no less) a philosopher of ethics. It is an effort coordinated as well with other governments whose political and military leaders are looking for ways to pursue "asymmetrical warfare" against peoples resisting domination and the plundering of their resources and labor without the encumbrances of human rights and current international law. It is a campaign that is making progress and had better be taken seriously by us all.
The practice. Statement three days ago from US Deputy Ambassador to the UN Alejandro Wolff on the Goldstone Report:
"We have previously noted shortcomings that include [the report's] unbalanced focus on Israel, the negative inferences it draws about Israel’s intentions and actions, its failure to deal adequately with the asymmetrical nature of the Gaza conflict, and its failure to assign appropriate responsibility to Hamas for deliberately targeting civilians, and basing itself and its operations is heavily civilian-populated urban areas."
YEP – it justify Israel’s genocide of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians but it’s an act of great anti-Semitism to kill an Israeli combatant Jews while defending Palestinian or Lebanese individual rights or national security.
Iranian regime, which is being demonized as being bent on creating another Holocaust – is home to 30,000 Jews – none of whom has been killed by Iranians as revenge to what Israel has been doing to Muslims in Israel, occupied territories and Lebanon since 1948.
Israel’s fear of Iran is an international problem
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
I think it might have been intended by some to justify persecution and indiscrimminate attacks on civilians, but the ambiguity within international law on how to legally deal with quasi-state entities like Hamas and Hezbollah, and other more factional organizations like Islamic Jihad, is naked and glaring.
Hamas and Hezbollah adopt the opportunistic latitude of “we are a state” when that suits their political ends, but “we are not a state” when that suits their political ends.
They get to hide in civilian areas and get the protection of the legal rights of civilians. Its a real problem, no matter it is dismissed by activists.
Incorporating that reality into actual law will take away that ambiguity that both Hamas and Israel attempt to benefit from.
The existing state of the law is insufficient and innaplicable to reality.
I think it might have been intended by some to justify persecution and indiscrimminate attacks on civilians, but the ambiguity within international law on how to legally deal with quasi-state entities like Hamas and Hezbollah, and other more factional organizations like Islamic Jihad, is naked and glaring.
There is no ambiguity. International law specifically states that civilians are to be protected, yet what you and your ilk seek to do is flip the law upside down. Instead of the security and safety of civilian populations trumping the destruction and killing of so-called “quasi state” entities, you want it to be the other way around.
Well, junior, it doesn’t work that way.
By the way, you misspelled “indiscriminate”.
“By the way, you misspelled “indiscriminate”.”:
That’s not fair! If there’s one thing Witty know about, it’s discrimination.
Yes, there is some ambiguity in how to apply current clear international law–what do you do with suspected possible civilian aiders and abetters suddenly appearing, especially if some of your soldier buddies might have, say been killed by a young villager or old mother? Remember the horror scenarios US grunts told about what it was like when they were entering a Vietnam village? OTH, there was, e.g., Lt Calley types, and the remedy of simply burning down the whole village. At least a handful of nations have recently signed a treaty clarifying the status of hired mercenary support groups like Blackwater, but that’s easier to distinguish. Of course, the US should never been in Vietnam; that is of some relevance to Israeli
actions against the Palestinians. And the old saw: one man’s terrorist is another’s
patriotic resistance fighter.
T00, Hamas is not recognized as a state; Israel is, and has signed on to many of the international laws of war governing recognized states. Remember that the British redcoats in early N America always were complaining about the unfair guerrila warfare carried out by the colonial support forces?
As I have said previously, I guess it bears repeating, so why write something new?
Yes, that was a very good post that Shmuel wrote, and in a way about the “extent” of what the Israelis wish to do it is totally new – that is, to officially change what the rules and laws between what nations can and cannot do in war in regard to the entire world (I did not get to this point last time). It is old in the sense of trying to change the definitions of how you are “fighting” whoever, and has been repeatedly tried.
Last time Shmuel posted this I cited Finkelsteins argument with Dershowitz about having to change the rules of engagement in regard to the Palestinians, this time I could cite what King George did in changing the status of the Revolutionary fighting forces of the USA – who refused to look at them as an official force. They were given none of the same “courtesies” afforded to other forces because he wanted to see them as traitorous criminals, rather than official forces – this also because he refused to see them as an independent country. They did not need to be recognized in either battle, in what they were “charged” with, nor their imprisonment – removing ostensibly habeas corpus, etc. Which we have already seen implemented under the Bush Administration in regards to “illegal combatants” in the so-called war on terror.
At this juncture, what Israel wishes to do is submerge the whole world in the same process of unchecked war, with no regard to innocence – civilians, age, status – no ostensible difference, put into operation the Old Testament principle (so we do not get technical and confuse everyone) of kill everything that moves with impunity. Not to assuage some deity at this point, but to invoke the new deity “the land” for Israel and the unquestioned god-like impunity for the empire.
It is not like this has not been the practice for both Israel and other dominants in reality, but now they wish to codify it globally. It is just like the codification of torture in the USA, not that it was not taking place already, codification is just the last stage of complete corruption. Israel indeed plays the “war on terror” card even though it is not engaged in war, but in an illegal occupation, and the US among other nations are involved in a so-called “war on terror” when in reality all they wish to do is dominate the weak and poor and kill them with impunity to impress their will.
I could go on, but I have time constraints this morning, but will be glad to develop this later. However, this is what we face in the sense of what is “new” and what is the continuation of what has previously occurred in the past – it is always the precursor to unchecked atrocities and crimes. The “progressive” rogue state wishes to plunge us back into medieval times.
“There’s no law west of the Pecos.”
The wild west.
If Nuremberg meant anything, Bush, Chaney, and the usual neocon propaganda and key administrative crew would already be being tried for war crimes.
“Cause west of the Fontainebleau, I am the law”
Podner, it’s modnerner!
link to lyricsmania.com
Human Rights Watch and other groups don’t have any problem pointing out when guerilla groups actually do violate international law and use civilians as shields (to the extent that this happens). And I think I can trust their judgment on such things more than yours. The problem in real life is that guerilla groups and state actors both target civilians, or use them as shields or violate the law in other ways. Israel just wants to change the law to make their forms of terrorism legal. To talk about this as though it is a serious issue just plays into Israel’s hands and weakens the legal criticism of their actions.
There may also be some Americans who’d like to weaken the protection of civilians in wartime.
There may also be some Americans who’d like to weaken the protection of civilians in wartime.
Like, the Pentagon.
I think it might suffice to really get this whole issue out in the open, and I have quoted this source before, it is the closest to what see as the overall discussion we are having here. There seems to be a failure to understand the situation of what is taking place in the world, or seem to deny the overt imperialism and colonial activity and the reactions to such. So I will defer to Nir Rosen again – Excerpts:
“I have often been asked by policy analysts, policy-makers and those stuck with implementing those policies for my advice on what I think America should do to promote peace or win hearts and minds in the Muslim world. It too often feels futile, because such a revolution in American policy would be required that only a true revolution in the American government could bring about the needed changes. An American journal once asked me to contribute an essay to a discussion on whether terrorism or attacks against civilians could ever be justified. My answer was that an American journal should not be asking whether attacks on civilians can ever be justified. This is a question for the weak, for the Native Americans in the past, for the Jews in Nazi Germany, for the Palestinians today, to ask themselves.
Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what the Other does, not what we do. The powerful – whether Israel, America, Russia or China – will always describe their victims’ struggle as terrorism, but the destruction of Chechnya, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the slow slaughter of the remaining Palestinians, the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan – with the tens of thousands of civilians it has killed … these will never earn the title of terrorism, though civilians were the target and terrorising them was the purpose…
Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors. The danger in this excessive use of legality actually undermines legality, diminishing the credibility of international institutions such as the United Nations. It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules, insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism.
Attacking civilians is the last, most desperate and basic method of resistance when confronting overwhelming odds and imminent eradication. The Palestinians do not attack Israeli civilians with the expectation that they will destroy Israel. The land of Palestine is being stolen day after day; the Palestinian people is being eradicated day after day. As a result, they respond in whatever way they can to apply pressure on Israel. Colonial powers use civilians strategically, settling them to claim land and dispossess the native population, be they Indians in North America or Palestinians in what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories. When the native population sees that there is an irreversible dynamic that is taking away their land and identity with the support of an overwhelming power, then they are forced to resort to whatever methods of resistance they can…
A Zionist Israel is not a viable long-term project and Israeli settlements, land expropriation and separation barriers have long since made a two state solution impossible. There can be only one state in historic Palestine. In coming decades, Israelis will be confronted with two options. Will they peacefully transition towards an equal society, where Palestinians are given the same rights, à la post-apartheid South Africa? Or will they continue to view democracy as a threat? If so, one of the peoples will be forced to leave. Colonialism has only worked when most of the natives have been exterminated. But often, as in occupied Algeria, it is the settlers who flee. Eventually, the Palestinians will not be willing to compromise and seek one state for both people. Does the world want to further radicalise them?…”
GAZA: THE LOGIC OF COLONIAL POWER
Yeah, we have plenty of little Chaneys; they like to weaken the protections of civilians in wartime (which now is forever, as in “war on terror” and “war on drugs.” Both selected foreign civilians and selected domestic civilians have been targeted for some time now.
Richard when was the last time that Hezbollah or Hamas used the distinction of being a state or not being a state to obtain political leverage?
Can you cite a recent example within the last 10 years of this happening?
Furthermore, it has been proven that neither Hamas or Hezbollah used human shields or hid their forces in densely populated civilian areas. It has been proven however, that Israel did use Palestinian civilians as human shields when confronting Hamas positions.
Hezbollah, furthermore, kept virtually all of its troops and bunkers far away from civilian areas for two reasons.
1) to avoid collaboraters giving away their positions.
2) mountains provide for better defense positions than cities.
Nonetheless, Israel insisted on bombing civilian targets, despite the fact that there is zero evidence to suggest that Hezbollah maintained heavy military operations in civilian areas.
Anyway, Richard, you’ve repeated these lies so many times, and we will refute them every time.
So please stop wasting our time.
“Asymmetrical warfare” (occupation, non-international conflict, guerilla warfare, etc.) is dealt with clearly and specifically in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (ratified by Israel and the US) and in Protocol I of 1977 (not ratified by Israel or the US but nevertheless binding as customary international law). The only problem is that Israel and the United States do not like the rules so they pretend that the basic nature of war has suddenly changed and there is a lacuna in international law that lets them off the hook and allows them (as per the assertions of Kasher and Yadlin) to shape future international law on the subject.
Apart from the blatant falsehood of the Israeli (and US) claims, it is true doublespeak to insist on exceptional legal protection for the infinitely stronger side in an uneven conflict of any kind – all the more so in a situation of occupation and oppression.
The adoption of “terrorism” as the enemy in an endless and unwinnable war is central to this process. “Terror” is infinitely flexible and undefinable. So acts that “we” commit are not terror, and acts that “they” commit are.
The key element is making sure that any groups in opposition to Israel are defined as “terrorist”, while describing Israeli acts as terrorist is condemned as anti-semitic.
Once the designated enemy is defined as “terrorist” the rules of war become asymetric, which is another way of saying exceptionalist.
Yes, Schmuel, well-written and exactly the point. The whole game is played so “we have the power and most of the goodies.” As Chaney responded, “So?”
VR said Israel want’s to drag us back to medieval times–I think this is old wine in new bottles because we are already back in those times–the rise of industry and technology and more intricate high finance
masks the actual feudal impact on the have-nots of the world.
You are probably absolutely correct there Citizen.
The only thing “Asymmetrical” here are theads of Israelis and US hegemony.
The only thing “Asymmetrical” here are THE HEADS of Israelis and US hegemony.
Asymmetric warfare was the DoD hot button in 1990.
As Norman Geras once put it, the rules don’t apply only when it’s easy to uphold them.
There has been a notable shift in Zionist discourse from 2002 to 2009. Back in 2002, the IDF was highly praised because it didn’t bomb Jenin from the air, thus minimizing civilian casualties. In 2009, however, bombing from the air became suddenly acceptable, and civilian casualties were no longer a consideration because a country has the right to defend its citizens — even when Gazans killed a hundred times fewer Israelis than the Jenin terrorists!