July 18, 2006
IT'S NOT ABOUT RIGHTS:
f Israel has the right to use force in self defence, so do its neighbours: The west appears to insist that only one side in the conflict is able to intervene militarily across borders. That will never be accepted (Ahmad Samih Khalidi, July 18, 2006, The Guardian)
Much has been made in recent days - at the G8 summit and elsewhere - of Israel's right to retaliate against the capture of its soldiers, or attacks on its troops on its own sovereign territory. Some, such as those in the US administration, seem to believe that Israel has an unqualified licence to hit back at its enemies no matter what the cost. And even those willing to recognise that there may be a problem tend to couch it in terms of Israel's "disproportionate use of force" rather than its basic right to take military action.But what is at stake here is not proportionality or the issue of self-defence, but symmetry and equivalence. Israel is staking a claim to the exclusive use of force as an instrument of policy and punishment, and is seeking to deny any opposing state or non-state actor a similar right. It is also largely succeeding in portraying its own "right to self-defence" as beyond question, while denying anyone else the same. And the international community is effectively endorsing Israel's stance on both counts.
From an Arab point of view this cannot be right. There is no reason in the world why Israel should be able to enter Arab sovereign soil to occupy, destroy, kidnap and eliminate its perceived foes - repeatedly, with impunity and without restraint - while the Arab side cannot do the same. And if the Arab states are unable or unwilling to do so then the job should fall to those who can.
They have the same "rights", but it's precisely because these states are so dysfunctional that they lack the capacity. The exquisite irony is that in order to be the kind of states that we'd take seriously as strategic players they'll have to reform along the lines that we're insisting they should. Cool, huh? Posted by Orrin Judd at July 18, 2006 8:00 AM
"[I]n order to be the kind of states we'd take seriously as strategic players they'll have to reform along the lines we're insisting they should." Great line--I wish I'd said that.
Notice how quickly the enemy game plan falls apart. The idea had been to set up a system of rules enshrining their brand of asymmetrical warfare whereby they wage war behind "neutrals" and from within "innocent" civilian populations in which they move like Mao's fish in the sea.
Look how the language of proportionality is cynically bandied about. Then come the vague threats. Who is going to do "the job" for them? Not the "FORMER SOVIET UNION," not Iraq. Iran, perhaps? Bring it on!
Posted by: Lou Gots at July 18, 2006 11:36 AMI read something interesting I did not know - supposedly the state of war Lebanon declared back in 1948 is still in effect. I suppose this makes sense - until recently only Egypt (and now Jordan) made peace - therefore, Lebanon and Israel must still be at war. But it seems to me that the Arab world needs to understand that refusing to make peace opens you up to this kind of attack.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at July 18, 2006 11:57 AM"The exquisite irony is that in order to be the kind of states that we'd take seriously as strategic players they'll have to reform along the lines that we're insisting they should." In those states nobody will die for "stupid" causes to prop up tyrants.
Posted by: ic at July 18, 2006 3:00 PM