The other day, my daughter called from college. She’s taking an international human rights course, and had been assigned to read the Executive Summary of the Goldstone Report, as well as criticism and defense of the report, including the attack by Moshe Halbertal in The New Republic. (Jerry Slater has done a masterful job picking apart Halbertal). My daughter was astonished to see that Halbertal had complained about "asymmetric warfare" on behalf of Israel.
Shmuel Sermoneta-Gertel has sone a post here on the asymmetric conflict standard. Phil Weiss too. Both referred to Jeff Halper’s comprehensive analysis of efforts to change international rules of war to protect the powerful. But my daughter’s conversation inspired me to add my two cents.
"Asymmetric warfare" has certainly become one of the primary hasbara talking points. We fight fair, in full uniforms and separated from our civilians, providing easy targets for our enemies, who are too incompetent to kill us. They, on the other hand, mix among civilians, making it so hard for us to distinguish between the eminently killable and the not-so-killable, whose deaths make us feel bad and look worse. At the Lawfare conference I attended the other day, several speakers mentioned the asymmetrical nature of the fighting. Gabriela Shalev, Israel’s UN Ambassador, noted that decades ago, the international rules for warfare were "enacted with symmetry in mind." Apparently, no one foresaw that in a fight between one of the most powerful militaries in the history of the world, and a much smaller group of poorly-armed fighters, the latter would enjoy an unfair and insurmountable advantage. Those pioneer architects of the laws of war did their best, but who knew?
Some of the usual anti-Semites have dismissed Israel’s concerns, but I think present circumstances dictate big changes. To satisfy Israel’s complaints about asymmetry, I propose the following. I think it might take a decade or so to achieve, but here’s how it would work.
All military aid to Israel would be suspended during a catch-up phase, during which tens of billions of dollars in equipment are provided to Israel’s enemies. This largesse would not be without conditions, as the most important component would be uniforms, use of which would be mandatory! Once Hamas, Hezbollah, and perhaps other applicants are outfitted with a full complement of Merkava tanks, Apache helicopters, drones, F-16 fighter jets, and nukes to back up any threat, and most importantly, are fully dressed in appropriate attire, true "symmetry" will have been achieved. "Just set up some bleachers out in the sun" and let ‘em duke it out in the Holy Land’s equivalent of Highway 61.
Turn your own cheek.
Stop the pogroms on the West Bank, Witty.
This from the guy who just asked a Palestinian Gandhi to starve himself to death in protest against Palestinian crimes against Israel.
Lame Donald.
Do you get the level of humanity of someone that would undertake a fast rather than see his enemies get harmed.
Its what made it possible to trust that dissent would result in a mutually humane outcome. In contrast, Hamas today initiated what its hoping will “evolve” to a third intifada, NOT non-violent, even though a dozen people have posted here how reliably non-violent Hamas is now.
It is a big deal.
If there is anything that will justify Israeli right-wing governance, and US cooperation with that, its orchestrated arbitrary violence.
Witty? Hamas ceased fire all through 2008. What did it get them?
When has Israel ever adhered to a cease fire? Ever? When has Zionism ever been predicated on nonviolence?
No.
Hamas’ atrocities do not allow for excuses from the Israelis or the US. Denying or mitigating Israeli responsibility only empowers Hamas.
Richard,
If the Israeli authorities enforce curfews on the two towns where there are non-violent protests against the government, do you really think they’re going to blink an eye-lid at a fast? Please Richard, just please stop your pathetic attempts at faking compassion for the Palestinians.
A fast is just another diversion for real attempts to get change, more time-wasting until there is no Palestine left, just an Israel from river to sea and the Palestinians condemned to a fate not too dissimilar to that of Native Americans.
You should know well that it is not a physical fast that defines moral leadership, but the commitment to love one’s own enough to advocate and demonstrate for their welfare, and at the same time the commitment to love one’s enemies enough to treat them decently.
“Faking compassion for the Palestinians”. You would prefer that I bear no compassion for Palestinians, so as not to confuse you?
In the real world there are Palestinians who criticize the human rights violations of both sides, as well as human rights groups like HRW, which do the same, but rather than talk about them or support them, you support people who attack HRW and you invoke a fantasy about some saintly Gandhian Palestinian who starves himself to death in protest against Palestinian violence. Israelis and their American supporters, of course, are mere children incapable of anything resembling moral reasoning, it seems, or you’d say more about their duty. I note that in the other thread you said that Naomi Klein and your “friend” Phil might not be in favor of peaceful reconciliation.
Even by your standards you’re really racking up a series of incredibly stupid and offensive comments today. Well done, Richard. Chalk up another victory for your peace through bullshit approach.
It would be more honest if you did so, Witty.
Actually, Sunyata it would be DISHONEST if I did.
Again, time for you to step up.
Donald,
Your interpretation that I asked for a Palestinian to starve himself, is a primo misrepresentation.
I was speaking of commitment to humanity. The kind that a person would be willing to die for principles, and unwilling to kill for ideology. Do you disrespect that level of commitment to humanity? Do you consider that level of commitment unproductive? Or unnecessary?
And there are much better and effective ways of advocating and demonstrating for the welfare of your own people, whilst still treating your adversaries decently – it’s quite obvious that in this case, fasting isn’t one of them.
“Faking compassion for the Palestinians”. You would prefer that I bear no compassion for Palestinians, so as not to confuse you?
No, I’d prefer if you showed real compassion, but if that’s beyond your capabilities, no compassion is better than advocating pointless symbolic gestures that no-one sees.
I don’t seem to recall African-American leaders advocating fasts after the Rosa Parks incident – I do seem to recall protests and boycotts
You wrote–
“Where is the Palestinian Gandhi that when he/she sees cadre undertaking immoral means, will fast to death?”
It’s not my fault that you don’t type what you mean. It is my fault for assuming you mean what you type, or mean anything at all.
On your questions–heroism is good, altruism is good, saintliness is good, and apple pie tastes sweet and I like summer days and bunny rabbits and puppies.
Oh! Donald, get Witty to cite Nelson Mandela as an example, two steps after he condemns Mandela’s stance that Israel is an apartheid society. That is comic gold.
If there is ever a need for me to ‘step up’ for anything, it is not because you say so.
today? what did i miss? i heard israel was bombing gaza yesterday but i had not heard about what hamas allegedly initiated today.
OOOH, Witty didn’t like the modest proposal. Swift.
Jeez, I think Witty is stuck. Can’t say anything new, but he can’t stop posting! Well, I’m sure everyone at his new job is following his comments here, and cheering him on! He may get a promotion out of it.
Great post, counselor!
Ahh, asymmetry and the self-pity of war…
International law has traditionally belonged to the Great Powers; the recent attempt by the US and Israel to reshape jus in bello to their advantage with this ridiculous “lawfare” offensive is not, alas, new.
For example: today’s unprivileged non-uniformed combatants are the direct descendants of the colonial “savages” of the late 19th century, against whom international law permitted unrestrained violence– dum dum bullets, the wiping out of entire villages, you name it.
Fréderic Mégret of McGill Law School has a great piece on this here– link to papers.ssrn.com
Yeah, anyone would think that Israel’s fight against native guerillas was something new and unprecedented. And their solution–loosen things back up the way they were in the good old days, when you’d just blow things up and let God sort them out and it was all legal.
I know, it’s like the British complaining about assymetric warfare during/after the revolutionary war. I wish more Americans were clued in about their own history.
Thanks, Chespirito. It looks like a great article.
Excellent. Jonathan Swift would be proud of you.
The entire argument that international law did not envisage “asymmetrical” conflicts of the kind Israel (and the US) face today, and so is inapplicable or inadequate, is a bold-faced lie. The Geneva Conventions and their subsequent protocols specifically address “armed conflict not of an international character“, referring to “militias” and “resistance”. This argument is even less convincing than Israel’s very unconvincing argument that the Fourth Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to the territories it “administers”, because they are not actually “occupied”.
What was the full quote relating to “armed conflict not of an international character”?
There is this thing called google. Let me show you how it works–
link
Now if you click on the third entry, you’d go here–
link
And that relates to what specifically?
“And that relates to what specifically?”
This question–”What was the full quote relating to “armed conflict not of an international character”?”
If you’d clicked on the first link, you’d have found Google’s long list of links related to Geneva Convention with the specific phrase “armed conflict not of an international character”.
If you’d click on the second link, you’d find what the Geneva Convention said (at least in that portion–maybe there’s more elsewhere but I don’t know) about such conflicts.
Really, RW, one would almost think you ask questions just to be trollish or to cover up the fact that you don’t really have anything substantive to say in defense of your position.
The Geneva Conventions language couldn’t be clearer.
Thanks, David. Rock-solid logic.
I’m a little curious why the geneva laws even acknowledge the legitimacy of occupation i.e. one nation stealing the land of another.
Personally, I consider all occupation to be a war crime, regardless of the reason or ‘neccesity.’
Sunyata – The Conventions don’t recognise the legitimacy of occupation per se, but establish the applicability of international humanitarian law in such cases.
Sunyata,
Sort of like saying ‘Boxers cannot bring Uzis into the ring; they have to use their hands. Padded gloves are OK’.
Israel’s claim that it is fighting an asymmetrical warfare is inherently false.
The underlying assumption in asymmetrical warfare is that the state actor (in this case Israel) is determined to abide by international law and conventions in its attempts to minimize civilian casualties in light of the assumption that the enemy “doesn’t play fair” and uses civilians and civilian infrastructure for its own protection.
But,
That is false, certainly in Israel’s case. Israel has been inflicting undue harm and violence on innocent civilians in thousands of cases where that harm and violence were evidenced to stem from no security or tactical objective. The administrative detentions, the hundreds of road blocks and checkpoints, the confiscation of land, the shooting of unarmed civilians by snipers, the bulldozing of entire neighborhoods, the tear gassing of peaceful marchers marching in their own towns, the shelling of fishermen’s boats, the wholesale slaughter of beach goers and on and on and on….The occupation of the West Bank and the siege on the Gaza Strip are a war, an ongoing state of war. But, Israel would have everyone believe otherwise.
In other words, Israel is merely seeking to LEGALIZE its targeting of civilians under the guise of a supposedly new paradigm called Asymmetrical Warfare.
The obvious question that needs to be asked at this point is, why now?
The last time Israel fought a “symmetric” (by Israel’s definition) war was back in 1973. So why has it taken Israel this long to press for such changes in the law?
The timing is important as it usually explains the motive.
Great post! I am going to remember this argument : )
Amen Avi.
Or rather, Israel certainly is engaged in an asymmetrical conflict–with immense military advantages to the IDF.
No one at last Thursday’s “Lawfare” conference mentioned the heavily asymmetrical death tallies on each side in the assault on Gaza, with 100 Palestinians killed for every Israeli killed.
The self-pitying tone of American neocons and their Israeli allies is, given these figures, all the more grotesque.
MMMmmmm, that specified self-pitying tone–where have I heard that before? Could it be–(any name pop up for you?)
Pingback: Cheap auto insurance quotes are possible, Michigan is heading for it. | Teen Auto Insurance Quote
DAVID SAMEL–thanks for sharing! Your two cents is worth tons of gold.
David,
This is a masterful post, as everything you write. I would only add Norman Geras’ observation that some believe that the Geneva Convention rules only apply when it’s easy to uphold them. However, the Convention establishes a single standard, and it applies to all wars.
On another note, anyone who claims terrorism is a new phenomenon has never heard of Guy Fawkes.
Gosh, life is so perplexing! On the one hand, I’ve got Witty (maybe acetone will get it off?) and on the other hand, actual Israelis, who’ve lived there and worked there, and speak English I understand. Whoooom shall I listen to? It’s such a hard choice…
Pingback: Can some recommend a Acai Berry supplement that has positive reviews from yourself or other you may know? |