Skip to comments.America, Israel, Gaza, the World
Posted on 11/18/2012 11:12:27 PM PST by JerseyanExile
As Israeli airstrikes and naval shells bombarded Gaza this weekend, the world asked the question that perennially frustrates, confuses and enrages so many people across the planet: Why arent the Americans hating on Israel more?
As in Operation Cast Lead, the last big conflict between Israel and Hamas, and as during the operation against Hezbollah in Lebanon, much of the world screams in outrage while America yawns. If anything, many of Israels military operations are more popular and less controversial in the United States than they are in Israel itself. This time around, President Barack Obama and his administration have issued one statement after another in support of Israels right to self defense, and both houses of Congress have passed resolutions in support of Jerusalems response.
Commentators around the world grasp at straws in seeking to explain whats going on. Islamophobia and racism, say some. Americans just dont care about Arab deaths and they are so blinded by their fear of Islam that they cant see the simple realities of the conflict on the ground. Others allege that a sinister Jewish lobby controls the media and the political system through vast power of Jewish money; the poor ignorant Americans are the helpless pawns of clever Jews. Still others suggest that it is fanatical fundamentalists with their carry on flight bags packed for the Rapture who are behind American blindness to Israels crimes.
America is a big country with a lot of things going on, but the real force driving American support for Israeli actions in Gaza isnt Islamophobia, Jewish conspiracies or foam-flecked religious nuts. Its something much simpler: many though not all Americans look at war through a distinctive cultural lens. Readers of Special Providence know that Ive written about four schools of American thinking about world affairs; from the perspective of the most widespread of them, the Jacksonians, what Israel is doing in Gaza makes perfect sense. Not only are many Jacksonians completely untroubled by Israels response to the rocket attacks in Gaza, many genuinely dont understand why the rest of the world is so steamed about Israeland so angry with the United States.
Americans as a people have never much believed in fighting by the rules. The Minutemen who fought the British regulars at Lexington and Concord in 1776 thought that there was nothing stupider in the world than to stand in even ranks and brightly colored uniforms waiting to shoot and be shot like gentlemen. They hid behind stone walls and trees, wearing clothes that blended in with their surroundings, and took potshots at the British wherever they could. George Washington saved the Revolution by a surprise attack on British forces the night before Christmas; far from being ashamed of an attack no European general of the day would have countenanced, Americans turned a painting of the attack (Washington Crossing the Delaware) into a patriotic icon. In America, war is not a sport.
Theoreticians of just war say that in order for war to be justifiable, two tests must be met. You have to have a legitimate cause for war (self defense, for example, rather than grabbing land from a weaker neighbor) and you must fight the war in the right way. You must fight fair (that is, fight a just war), and you must fight nice.
One of the criteria for jus in bello (fighting nice as opposed to jus ad bellum which is about whether it is just ) is proportionality. If the other guy comes at you with a stick, you cant pull a knife. If hes got a knife, you cant pull a gun. If he burned your barn, you cant nuke his capital. Your use of force must be proportionate to the cause and to the danger.
Israels fiercer critics attack it for fighting unjust wars against the Palestinians. For some, Zionism itself is an illegitimate idea and a state that has no right to exist has no right to defend itself. Anything it does to defend itself is a crime. This is how Hamas and many others think and it is why people in this camp are able to work themselves up into such a froth of indignation and rage when Israel responds to their fire.
For others, Israel may have a right to exist, but its occupation of the West Bank and other crimes against the Palestinians have deprived it of a just grounds for war when Palestinians attack it. People in this camp attack any use of force by Israel as lacking jus ad bellum, basically because they think Israel has forfeited its jus by its occupation and settlement policy. This is where a lot of the non-Muslim European left comes out and it is why they are so quick to attack Israel for a war which, after all, was triggered by rockets from Gaza landing in Israel.
But more moderate critics of Israel (including many Israelis) focus on jus in bello, and in particular they look at the question of proportionality. When the Palestinians flick a handful of fairly crude rockets at random across Israel, these critics say, Israel has a right to a kind of pinprick response: tit for tat. But it isnt entitled to bring the full power of its industrial grade air force and its mighty ground forces into an operation designed to crush Hamas at the cost of hundreds of civilian casualties. You cant fight slingshots with tanks.
For many people around the world, this seems patently obvious: Israel has a right to respond to attacks from Hamas but it doesnt have an unlimited right to respond to limited attacks with unlimited force. Israeli blindness to this obvious moral principle strikes many observers as evidence of hardheartedness and national moral decline, and colors their perceptions of many other Israeli policies.
The whole jus in bello argument sails right over the heads of most Americans. The proportionality concept never went over that big here. Many Americans are instinctive Clausewitzians; Clausewitz argued that efforts to make war less cruel end up making it worse, and a lot of Americans agree. From this perspective, the kind of tit-for-tat limited warfare that the doctrine of proportionality would require is a recipe for unending war: for decades of random air strikes, bombs and other raids. An endless war of limited intensity is worse, many Americans instinctively feel, than a time-limited war of unlimited ferocity. A crushing blow that brings an end to the warlike General Shermans march of destruction through the Confederacy in 1864-65is ultimately kinder even to the vanquished than an endless state of desultory war.
The European just war tradition springs in part from the reality that historically in Europe war was an affair of kings and rulers that hurt the little people without doing anything for them. Peasants really didnt care whether the Duke of Burgundy or the Count of Anjou was recognized as the rightful overlord of their village, and moralists and theologians worked to limit the violence that the dukes and the counts and their henchmen wreaked on the poor peasants caught up in a quarrel that wasnt theirs.
With no feudal past in this country, Americans have tended to see wars as wars of peoples rather than wars of elites and in a war of peoples the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate targets tends to collapse. The German civilian (male or female) making weapons for Hitlers Wehrmacht was as much a part of the enemys warmaking potential as the soldier at the front. Furthermore, in a war of peoples in which civilians are implicated in the conflict, the health and morale of the civilian population is a legitimate target of war. This justified the blockades against the Confederacy and against Germany and German occupied Europe during the world wars, and it also justified the mass terror bombing raids of World War Two in which the destruction of enemy morale was one of the stated aims.
This is the same logic by which someone like Osama bin Laden could justify his attacks on civilians at the World Trade Center, and it is the fundamental logic behind Hamas indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilian targets. Americans dont like it when their enemies use this kind of logic, but it is a type of warfare they understand and they have fought and won enough of these wars in the past to be ready if necessary to do it again.
From this perspective, in which war is an elemental struggle between peoples rather than a kind of knightly duel between courtly elites, the concept of proportionality seems much less compelling. Certainly if some kind of terrorist organization were to set up missile factories across the frontier in Canada and Mexico and start attacking targets in the United States, the American people would demand that their President use all necessary force without stint or limit until the resistance had been completely, utterly and pitilessly crushed. Those Americans who share this view of war might feel sorrow at the loss of innocent life, of the children and non-combatants killed when overwhelming American power was used to take the terrorists out, but they would feel no moral guilt. The guilt would be on the shoulders of those who started the whole thing by launching the missiles.
Thus when television cameras show the bodies of children killed in an Israeli air raid, Jacksonian Americans are sorry about the loss of life, but it inspires them to hate and loathe Hamas more, rather than to be mad at Israel. They blame the irresponsible dolts who started the war for all the consequences of the war and they admire Israels strength and its resolve for dealing with the appalling blood lust of the unhinged loons who start a war they cant win, and then cower behind the corpses of the children their foolishness has killed. The whole situation strengthens the widespread American belief that Palestinian hate rather than Israeli intransigence is the fundamental reason for the Middle East impasse, and the television pictures that drive much of the world away from Israel often have the effect of strengthening the bonds between Americans and the Jewish state. This automatic Jacksonian response to the Middle East situation overlooks some important complexities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and in the past Americas Jacksonian instincts have gotten us into trouble. But anyone trying to analyze the politics of the Middle East struggle as they unfold in American debates needs to be aware of the power of these ideas about war in American life.
In any case, when Israel brings the big guns and fast planes against Gazas popguns and low tech missiles, a great many Americans see nothing but common sense at work. These Americans arent mad about disproportionate Israeli violence in Gaza because they dont really accept the concept of proportionality in war. They think that if you have jus ad bellum, and rocket strikes from Gaza are definitely that, you get something close to a blank check when it comes to jus in bello.
If anything, rather than weakening American sympathy for Israel, Israels response in Gaza (and the global criticism that surrounds it) is likely to strengthen the bonds of respect and esteem that many Americans feel for Israelis. Far from seeing Israels use of overwhelming force against limited provocation as harsh or immoral, many Americans see it as courageous and wise. It strengthens the sense that in a wacky world where a lot of foreigners are hard to understand, the Israelis are honest, competent and reliable friends good people to have on your side in a tight spot.
Another long-winded piece of anti-Semitism. We’ve heard this song before, in Russian, German, and Arabic.
Either get a new song or get away from the juke box. You are wearing out the needle.
This article is a sad, delusional diatribe.
8000 rockets have been fired at Israel since 2005. There you go Mead. Weave that into your narrative.
Oh wait you can’t.
Is this *writer* on some sort of drugs?
Europeans have a tradition of “knightly”, limited wars. Two world wars and Hitler’s extermination of the Jews, and Stalin’s of almost everybody, were just anamolies /s
We Americans aren't stupid: we recognize anti-semitism for what it is and we also recognize the innate irrationality of the arab/islamist position. They are not interested in coming to a solution that will ensure a peaceful future: they only want the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the Jews.
The "rest of the world" can pound sand.
It seemed so to me until I got to the second half of the article, which succictly states why "the world" is wrong, and Americans are right.
Many Americans are instinctive Clausewitzians; Clausewitz argued that efforts to make war less cruel end up making it worse, and a lot of Americans agree. From this perspective, the kind of tit-for-tat limited warfare that the doctrine of proportionality would require is a recipe for unending war: for decades of random air strikes, bombs and other raids. An endless war of limited intensity is worse, many Americans instinctively feel, than a time-limited war of unlimited ferocity. A crushing blow that brings an end to the warlike General Shermans march of destruction through the Confederacy in 1864-65is ultimately kinder even to the vanquished than an endless state of desultory war. "
It’s Walter Russell Mead. He’s a self-contradictory obfuscator.
You're close Mead. I say we give the remaining Christians and atheist in Gaza 48 hours to leave, then nuke the place. That would be "wise."
I thought the article was quite neutral, more of an explanation of US/Israeli psychology vs. the psychology of Europe. The author criticizes neither perspective.
I, of course, take the historical perspective of the Americans: If you start a war with us, we will finish it, & you, too, with every weapon at our disposal.
What Europeans refuse to believe is that there is a right & a wrong, however obvious it may be. How quickly they have forgotten the truth of WWII. It is right that Israel exists in peace & security. It is wrong that Palestinians have vowed to kill all Jews & destroy Israel. Everything else is incidental to this truth.
I'll say it again for those who missed it: Israel should completely destroy Gaza, & drive the so-called Palestinians into Egypt & Jordan, permanently. No negotiations, no cease fire, no consideration of casualties. Same for the West Bank.
The idea of taking potshots at each other for decades is absurd.
What does “+1” mean?
It means I agree wth you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.