Evaluating the Self-Defense Claim

As Israel considers escalating its latest siege of Gaza, it continues to justify the violence with a predictable "self-defense" mantra.   An evaluation of this claim is thus in order.

The talking points used by Israel and the US to justify the unjustifiable are by now well-established.  Invariably, Israel's violence is followed by official support from Washington, often couched in the fatuous phrase "Israel has a right to defend itself."  This latest conflict is no exception, as president Obama was quick to remind us of Israel's right of self-defense shortly after Israel's campaign in Gaza began.  No serious person, of course, denies in the abstract that Israel, or any other state for that matter, has a right to defend itself against attacks.  The president's remarks thus amount to a classic straw-man, refuting an argument no one has presented.  Obama's proffering of this axiomatic truism makes sense only as a form of propaganda.  Through subtle suggestion, Mr. Obama hopes to persuade us to accept the premise embedded in his words that Israel is in fact defending itself. 

Considered as propaganda, the president's words are ingenious.  Once uttered, anyone who dares to continue in dissent against  US support for Israeli policy is placed in the contemptible position of appearing to dispute the notion that Israel has the right to defend itself.  This person thus becomes easy to dismiss as "extremist," or "radical." 

The propaganda expertise of Israel and the US aside, Israel's use of the self-defense claim is transparently absurd.  Israel is presently conducting an occupation of Palestinian land that has persisted for decades.  It is baffling that this fact is absent from the media's vexatious analysis of Israeli violence, and from public exhortations by Israel's apologists in support of its periodic campaign of destruction in Gaza.  One wonders how it is that an occupying power can seriously be allowed to claim self-defense as it wreaks havoc upon the people it is occupying.  To my knowledge, no one has ever even attempted to answer this question in an analysis of Israeli self-defense claims. 

An occupation is a perpetual invasion.  Occupation is thus an offensive act for as long as it continues. It is ridiculous to suggest that in the midst of a perpetual invasion a right of violent self-defense against the invaded is retained by the invader.  Undoubtedly, Israel has a non-violent right to defend itself against the violence of Palestinians.  But it does not have a right of violent self-defense against them.  Imagine if a gunman removed a family from their home at gunpoint and claimed it for himself.  Would any serious person claim that the gunman retains a right to use violence in self-defense when the family fights him to reacquire their property?  The answer is too obvious to belabor  Most would agree, however, that the gunman could defend himself by leaving the family's property. 

Similarly, Israel's only legitimate recourse is to end its occupation of Palestinian land entirely, dismantle its illegal settlement enterprise in the West Bank, cede the Golan Heights back to its rightful Syrian owners, and cease the inhumane blockade of the Gaza Strip.  Until Israel agrees to do these things, who can seriously tell the Palestinian people, who are subjected to a brutal occupation, who have no sovereignty, many of whom are jobless, their children malnourished and hungry, that they do not have the right to resist Israeli oppression by force?  What morally serious person would say something so cruel as that the Palestinian people must sit idly by while their stolen land is settled by Israel daily, and while they are subjected to the suffocating effects of the land and naval blockade of Gaza?  I submit that the answer is no one.

Self-defense is a sacred concept in International Law, despite that in recent days, unseemly characters have attempted to distort its axiomatic definition by eliminating the distinction between offense and defense.  Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, for example, has written that an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran would amount to self-defense.  In other words, offense is defense.  In making this argument Dershowitz and others carry the sordid torch of the Bush Administration, whose illegal invasion of Iraq, justified absurdly on self-defense grounds, caused a humanitarian catastrophe there.  George Bush thought offense was defense, too.  Ironically, self-defense was even a theme in Nazi propaganda supporting sadistic policies towards Jews.  The veracity of this latter claim is unworthy of serious analysis. 

No one should make the mistake of belittling the horrors endured by Israeli citizens as rockets reign down around them.  Though trivial compared to the plight of Palestinian families in Gaza, the insecurity of Israeli citizens must be alleviated--this is the obligation of the Israeli government.  But what is the way to go about doing this?  According to Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, "[t]he only way we can achieve peace and security is to create real deterrence via a crushing response that will make sure [Palestinians] don't try to test us again."  This policy of overwhelming response has been in use by Israel since its emergence as a state sixty years ago and has contributed nothing toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.  Sixty years later Palestinians are still resisting by firing rockets into Israel, and Israel is still issuing the "crushing responses" advocated by Lieberman.  Clearly, Israeli violence is not going to bring an end to this conflict.  This should be obvious by now.

A more reflective approach to protecting Israeli citizens counsels ruminating about the source of Palestinian hostility.  It doesn't take long to comprehend.  Hamas has made clear repeatedly in the present conflict that it wants an end to the blockade of Gaza as part of a cease-fire to end the current violence.  Hamas has also accepted a two-state solution to its conflict with Israel, which requires an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.  If the Israeli government cares about its citizens, why has it not accepted these offers?  Rather than end the blockade and agree to a cease-fire, Israel continues to bombard Gaza, racking up a large civilian death toll.  Rather than end the occupation of the West Bank, Israel continues its prolific settlement enterprise, which is an undisputed violation of International Law.  These Israeli policies are the source of the Gaza rocket attacks.  To bring security to Israelis, Israel must repudiate them.