Rationalizing the unrationalizable
The blockade of Gaza is one of the most egregious components of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It imposes tremendous suffering and has not provided Israel with any significant tactical advantage. Yet Jewish leaders continually voice support for it.
“There are 1.5 million people living in Gaza and only one of them really needs humanitarian aid,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak said to the Knesset on Monday. “Only one of them is locked in a tiny room and never sees the light of day, only one of them is not allowed visits and is in uncertain health – his name is Gilad Shalit, and this month four years will have passed since he was kidnapped.”
“In fact, there is no humanitarian crisis.” – ADL Director Abe Foxman
If your analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict stems from a desire to rationalize Israeli policies no matter what, you end up making completely asinine statements like those above.
Shalit is often invoked as a method of ignoring or excusing the suffering of Gazans, which is a shame, because his captivity is horrible, inhumane, and criminal. The difficulty for someone like me who unequivocally opposes both the blockade and his captivity is in not coming off as belittling the former. So Barak’s quote hits me especially hard – denying the extent of the externally-imposed suffering, economic isolation, and restriction of natural development that the blockade causes, in order to shift the conversation to a single captive soldier of your army is just dishonest. This isn’t even a matter of comparing suffering (see this New Voices post for my thoughts on why that’s unproductive anyway) – using Shalit as a tool to shift the conversation away from the real-life effects of the blockade does a disservice both to Gazans and Shalit.
And it goes both ways. When the Gaza Freedom Flotilla refused Noam Shalit’s offer to advocate for them with the Israeli government if they’d deliver items to his son, they demonstrated a motive in their analysis of the conflict. Rather than accepting his offer of peace (which would have provided them with a tactical advantage as well), they chose to do exactly what Ehud Barak did, only in reverse. There’s very little excuse for not engaging in a humanitarian mission (and “because it doesn’t fit our opinion of the situation” is particularly weak). Had the Freedom Flotilla carried Noam Shalit’s package and letter to his son, they would have become a powerful metaphor for the peace activists’ ability and willingness to reach across to the Other and understand their pain. Instead, they demonstrated that there was no room for an Israeli’s suffering in their precooked narrative.
In the same way, Israel must immediately lift the blockade, and until they do, Jewish American leaders must stop excusing it. Having an honest debate about its merits and effects is legitimate, but Barak and Foxman take it too far. Changing the terms of the conversation in the manner they do is plain old dishonest.
i’ve read and have been told by firsthand sources that the incident involving Noam Shalit and the flotilla activists have been largely misrepresented and there was no refusal to engage with the Shalit family. I don’t really know the details, but I’m not sure we should accept the notion that there was blanket refusal to advocate on behalf of Gilad Shalit.
In regard to the claim that the Gaza Freedom Flotilla refused Noam Shalit’s offer; I doubted that from the moment I saw it, particularly considering the tactical advantage you mention. Beyond that, the Freedom Flotilla has publicly refuted the accusation:
It seems far more likely to me that the lawyers expected the offer to be refused, but when it was accepted they realised it would give the Freedom Flotilla a tactical advantage, so they backed out and simply pretend they got what they expected instead.
A parallel- interested in people’s reactions:
1) Israel wants to put pressure on the people of Gaza to get rid of Hamas. They do so by way of a naval blockade and closing crossings- the result: Gazans are united in despising Israel.
2) The world wants to put pressure on Israel for its treatment of Gaza and the occupation. They constantly criticize it, threaten boycotts, cancel concerts, etc. The result: Israelis increasingly feel that the world is against them and become more and more self-defensive.
Parallel?
Israel is at war with Hamas. Hamas is still firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Blockade is an internationally-legal part of war and a non-aggressive one at that. Leave the blockade alone.
Additionally, if there is an humanitarian crisis, which is highly debatable, it is the fault of the governing party in the area, which Israel is trying to defeat anyway.
You, RB, may disagree with some basic tenets of Israel’s existence but it does not rationalize a ruthless attack of Israel’s every move. In the attempt to end it, you are merely creating animosity.
arie-
Yes, I think BDS is a good parallel, and counterproductive for similar reasons to the blockade. However, criticizing Israel is not parallel, and neither renaissanceboy nor anyone else has suggested that it’s a bad idea to criticize Hamas.
Tal-
If you deny the fact that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza there is something wrong with you. You can debate the cause of the crisis, but it is pure idiocy to deny the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. Just look at the Goldstone report or any other legitimate human rights organizations such as Amnesty International or B’tselem. To deny the suffering of any humans for political reason strikes me as very intellectually dishonest and wrong. Read something other than the Jerusalem Post-
“Malnutrition is extremely high in a number of different dimensions and affects 75 percent of Gazans. Over 50 percent of Gazan children under the age of 12 have been found to have no will to live.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081229_party_to_murder/
http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20090423_Response_to_IDF_investigation_of_Operation_Cast_Lead.asp
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGMDE150212009
It is absurd to compare the BDS movement, which has the backing of figures such as Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, to the brutal and murderous blockade of the Gaza Strip. BDS is primarily about sending a message to the Israeli government that actions have consequences, and that it will no longer have a free hand to punish the Palestinians. BDS does not include a call to deny normal Israeli citizens basic necessities such as food and medicine, as the blockade has done to the people of Gaza.
Mike writes:
It is absurd to compare the BDS movement, which has the backing of figures such as Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu,
Ad hominem fallacy.
Mike writes:
BDS is primarily about sending a message to the Israeli government that actions have consequences, and that it will no longer have a free hand to punish the Palestinians.
And how effective do you think that has been so far?
My basic premise remains unchanged: when a group of people feel under attack, they do not internalize why they are being attacked but rather blame the attacker.
ad hominem fallacy?
Given the failure of international law, and the impunity of the Israeli state, we believe there is no alternative but for ordinary citizens to try their best to fill the breach. Desmond Tutu said: “The end of apartheid stands as one of the crowning accomplishments of the past century, but we would not have succeeded without the help of the international community – in particular the divestment movement of the 1980s. Over the past six months, a similar movement has taken shape, this time aiming at the end of the Israeli occupation.”
http://bdsmovement.net/?q=node/528
ad hominem fallacy?
Yes. The fact that it is supported by respected people is not, in itself, evidence that it’s a good idea.
RB, when KFJ raised the issue of the Shalit letter (2 weeks ago?), I pointed out the flotilla folks response: that Shalit and co were lying.
I’m sort of nervous that you don’t follow every jot and tittle on this here blog. To raise the same refuted claim in a subsequent post, well, it puts me off balance just a bit.
So you see, it doesn’t really go both ways. At least not the way you pointed it out.
anyone who says the Gaza humanitarian crisis is the fault of the governing body is the same type of argument that blames Obama’s administration for our economic situation in America. Hamas inherited a starved population when they were elected. Gaza has long been the most overpopulated piece of Earth with severe unemployment and malnutrition. I cannot believe how many Jews are comfortable saying Gazans aren’t starving. Yeah, and people in Treblinka got bread and gruel, so they weren’t starving, right?
BZ,
If you bother to check the meaning of ad hominim, you’ll find Mike’s comment is nothing of the sort. Rather, his comment is an appeal to authority. Unlike ad hominim, arguments from authority are only fallacies in formal logic, and not in regard to matters which lack an established criteria for proof, such as the one under discussion here.
That said, exactly how much worse would it have to get in Gaza before you’d be willing to agree that a humanitarian crisis exists there?
kyleb writes:
That said, exactly how much worse would it have to get in Gaza before you’d be willing to agree that a humanitarian crisis exists there?
Huh? Are you talking to me? When did I say there wasn’t a humanitarian crisis in Gaza?
‘Over 50% of the Gaza children under 12 have been found to be having no will to live.’
I can understand how the conversations with the 6-month-olds could lead to that conclusion based on the ratio of dribbles to gurgles, but you would think that the actions of the four-year olds regarding their desire to be quiet and stare at total strangers for no reason might lead to doubts.
what kind of heartless person actually wants to have the debate over whether people in Gaza are really suffering? Are these same people going to tell me 1/3 of Israeli children DON’T go to bed hungry? That most of the world really actually lives on more than $1 a day?
unreal!
“Had the Freedom Flotilla carried Noam Shalit’s package and letter to his son, they would have become a powerful metaphor for the peace activists’ ability and willingness to reach across to the Other and understand their pain.”
Only by engaging the Other and our shared humanity will Hamas stop launching missiles filled with high explosives against Israeli villages.
“In the same way, Israel must immediately lift the blockade, and until they do, Jewish American leaders must stop excusing it.”
Why “must” Israel lift its blockade on a declared enemy territory? Naval blockades are a recognized element of armed conflict and international law.
“Malnutrition is extremely high in a number of different dimensions and affects 75 percent of Gazans. Over 50 percent of Gazan children under the age of 12 have been found to have no will to live.”
Can’t wait to find out what “methodologies” were used to arrive at those howlers.
BZ,
Yes I was talking to you, as I’ve yet to see you agree that there is an ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
kyleb writes:
Yes I was talking to you, as I’ve yet to see you agree that there is an ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Oh, come on. I’ve yet to see you agree that 2+2=4. What would it take before you’d be willing to agree to this?
It’s ridiculous when commenters on the right play this game (and say that Jewschoolers must be pro-terrorism because we didn’t explicitly condemn the latest terrorist attack); are commenters on the left going to start playing this game too?
Eric,
Humanitarian aid blockades are flagrantly illegal under international law.
BZ,
Yes I was talking to you, as I’ve yet to see you agree that there is an ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
—kyleb · June 10th, 2010 at 12:17 am
Does it need to be said explicitly? All one really needs to do is see the very consistent contributions of BZ around the site over the years…
“Humanitarian aid blockades are flagrantly illegal under international law.”
Nice try, kyleb. But I’d suggest consulting the customary “international law” first. Blockades are standard fare.
(I particularly recommend Part I, Section V; Part IV, Section II; and Part V, Sections V and VI.)
Justin,
My question was simply one of curiosity, not necessity.
Eric,
Lame try. Don’t expect me to humor such nonsense.
BZ,
2+2=4, all you had to do was ask. What is preventing you from giving a forthright answer to my question?
kyle writes:
2+2=4, all you had to do was ask. What is preventing you from giving a forthright answer to my question?
Dignity.
And it’s destructive to the possibility of reasonable discourse to give into the meme that anyone who hasn’t explicitly said X must implicitly believe not-X. This is a tool of bullying, more commonly used by the right, but I won’t tolerate it from the left either.
kyleb writes:
2+2=4, all you had to do was ask.
Yeah, and what took you so long? I suspect that your support for 2+2=4 is conditional, and less than sincere.
“Eric,
Lame try. Don’t expect me to humor such nonsense.
—kyleb · June 10th, 2010 at 12:20 pm”
Kyleb, I’d never expect you to humor the actual text of a document upon which you purport to base an argument.
(p.s. I also recommend reviewing the accompanying commentary on the San Remo Manual by Prof. Louise Doswald-Beck.)
BZ,
I wasn’t attempting to bully you, and rather I was simply interested in your position on the topic of this thread. I asked because your prior comments had avoided addressing the topic directly, just like your comments since. As for whatever concept of dignity you believe justifies your hostile response to my curiosity; I’m even not going to ask.
Eric,
My position isn’t based on the manual you presented, but rather on actual laws, as explained in the UNHRC’s Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, section IV. A.
Wow.
I’m well past thirty, and I think I’m definitely in with the so-called “ambivalent” youth. (Or worse, since I was never raised with a Zionist sense of privilege or destiny.)
Watching a bunch of over-educated, elitist suits defending Israel’s actions NO MATTER WHAT, and I’m left just shaking my head.
If this is Israel, forget it. I’ll stay home. They can have it.
Who said it’s yours to give, Beth? “Privilege or destiny”? People’s lives are at stake, not the flavor of your popcorn. That self-gratifying arrogance in your tone says a bit about your own “privilege and destiny”. Stay home, Beth, please.
“My position isn’t based on the manual you presented, but rather on actual laws, as explained in the UNHRC’s Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, section IV. A.
—kyleb · June 10th, 2010 at 6:45 pm”
So now you’re basing your argument on the UN “Human Rights” Commission???
You made a grand claim about international law that was easily disprovable. Instead of admitting that your claim was incorrect, you resort to citing the most malfunctional and cynical of the UN’s several malfunctional and cynical bureaucracies.
Except that even the report you link to contains nothing that contradicts the fact that there’s nothing illegitimate under customary international law about naval blockade in the context of conflict. This is painfully obvious, as the U.S. and many other countries enforce all sorts of inspection/seizure-at-sea programs, and the U.S. itself has participated in the naval blockade of entire countries.
Of course if you’re making an argument about the content of international law it would make things so much easier if you’d just read the document containing the actual text.
Bot that doesn’t bother you. Got your next non sequitur lined up yet?
Eric,
My position is based on the Geneva Conventions, the UNHRC report which I linked simply notes the relevant laws and explains their applicability to the situation of Gaza. Put simply; Israel’s blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza is an egregious violation of internal law, which leaves those of us who respect human rights and international law with the right to run that illegal blockade.
On the other hand, the manual you cite isn’t international law, but rather simply a discussion of it, and one which doesn’t cite the laws at that. In referencing it, you’re basically doing the equivalent of citing Midrash to claim Torah.
The devout Rabbis say that Israel is in a war cycle that will not end until the Messiah comes. It began as prophesied when Ariel Sharon went on the temple mount. Many things are prepared to bring in God’s appointed nation of Israel; but Israel has stayed secular and leaned on other nations contrary to the will of God.
God always stirred up an enemy to Israel when they rejected His ways. The Messiah that will come will come with the word of God, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. That means that when we turn to the word of God AS WRITTEN, the Messiah will be seen. God has prepared the way. If Israel turns to God in truth, there will be no division or two state solution.
Divine-Way
God has solutions to world problems we created by ignoring His wisdom.
where do these people come from? Check out her website, hysterical. check out her “evidence” that Obama was never eligible to be president b/c of forged documents. you provide crackpot politics and religious phenomenalism and you expect me to trust you that the Messiah is coming? I’ll keep waiting… so if I follow you, God’s “divine way” is ethnic cleansing? where do these people come from!?
A recent study of the seabottom lawyers of sedimentation have revealed the earth has gone through at least 6 very similar cycles, whereby an ice age lasting for 100’s of millions of years leaves earths surface covered in glaciation, followed by 10’s of millions of years whereby the earth warms up. We don’t know why, We look at the earth circling the sun at 79,000 miles per hour, the sun circling the galaxy at about 200 meters per second, with a 225/250 million year year, or time to circle the galaxy, our galaxy seems to be moving through the current known universe at about 600 feet per second. The Moon circles the sun, in a two planet system, earth/moon, whereby the moon trys to escape earths attraction and goes about 6% ahead of the earth, only to be pulled back toward earth and slows down until it is about 6% behind the earth, then it repeats the cycle again, during this cycle it rotates 360 degrees, giving us the impression the moon circles the earth, which actually circles the sun, it is the 5th largest planet in our solar system. the full moon cycle takes about 9 years to complete its cycle regarding earth, or to return to the same position in relationship to earth/moon/sun.
The information revolution is in progress, information is doubling every few years. I would like to have a belief system I could have enough faith in to rely on it that those are the words I need to see my spirit through time, Unfortunately, our magnitude of literacy has not yet reached that magnitude.
The only reson I believe in spirituality is, my life is all about meditation and prayer, real visions coming to me from the spiritual realm, have made my life one of continual study, prayer, meditation, in search of both better instrumentation and the ongoing discovery of new and exciting elements of our reality. I would like to say it is because of our academic system, but its not, its because of our instrumentation, which had nothing to do with academia, Its all about the one book, where virtually all mans past efforts are available on the one book thus the ” Information Revolution ”
Don’t sacrafice your principles for anothers ideals, discover yourself, become the best you can be as an individual, each day a life of mental and spiritual growth. then perhaps the great spirit will present to you, words are unfit to describe the realm of the great spirit, and the other spirits. The entiety of sheer truth