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.

The Truth About Israel's Latest Violence

For more than fifty years, the pattern has repeated itself: Israel continues its brutal occupation, Palestinians respond violently out of desperation and anger, Israel uses overwhelming force claiming that it is “defending” itself.  Israel has been allowed to make this fatuous claim for too long.

By far the worst failing of the American press when it comes to the Israel/Palestine conflict is its tendency to report the latest incident as though it were occurring in a vacuum, neglecting to contextualize it with essential history.  The coverage of Israel's latest bombardment provides us with characteristic examples of this media myopia.  Consider this CNN report, which begins with the following: “Strikes flew across the Gaza border  in rapid succession Thursday, as Israel responded to an onslaught of militant rocket  attacks by targeting "terror sites.[1]"  The picture painted is clear: there was an “onslaught of militant rocket attacks,” Israel “responded” and is now attacking “terror sites.”  This is all  the relevant information.  The report continues thereafter as a megaphone for Israeli propaganda, uncritically (a sin in journalism) reciting Israel’s claims of self-defense.  The headline from Fox News is even worse.  It proclaims: “Israel battles Hamas rocket blitz[2].”  Again, a clear picture--innocent Israel defending itself from a "blitz" of rocket-fire.  The New York Times, a supposed bastion of liberalism, is little better, as it too neglects to offer context and instead merely informs us of Israel’s stated purpose with this attack, [3] as though it is important for us to know.

Unsurprisingly, what virtually no voice in the American press tells us is the truth.  This latest attack is not a “response” to Palestinian attacks, nor can it credibly be called self- defense.  Rather, it is the inevitable result of Israel’s harsh and brutal occupation that has been in place since 1967, and of its inhuman blockade of Gaza that has wreaked havoc on its inhabitants since 2007.

A proper understanding of the effects of this blockade is essential to understanding this latest eruption of violence.  U.N. human rights groups have said the blockade amounts to the illegal collective punishment [4] of Palestinians in Gaza.  A 2010 report by Amnesty International entitled “Suffocating Gaza – the Israeli blockade’s effects on Palestinians,” illustrated the misery that it has produced: “Mass unemployment, extreme poverty and food price rises caused by shortages have left four in five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid.”[5]  The report continued: “The blockade prohibits most exports and restricts the entry of basic goods, including food and fuel. Much of the available food is provided by the UN and other aid agencies, or smuggled in through tunnels running under the Egypt-Gaza border and then sold on at exorbitantly high prices to Gaza’s beleaguered residents.” [6]  Human Rights Watch, also reporting on the effects of the blockade, describes it as "[having] crippled Gaza's economy and led to high rates of unemployment, poverty, and food insecurity[7].”  Children, who are more than half of the Gazan population, have been impacted in a particularly egregious way.  According to a 2009 UNICEF report, 65.8% of Gazan children ages 9-12 are anemic, one-fifth are iodine deficient, 22% of Gazans ages 12-59 lack Vitamin A, and 34% of Gazan families are food insecure with 12% more at risk.[8] Though Israel eased the effects of the blockade in 2010, things have not improved much.  In 2011, UNICEF provided an update:

"Demolitions of homes, schools and health-care centres continue to cause disruption in services basic to human rights, such as education and health care. Heightened regional tension during the ‘Arab Spring’, coupled with internal political reconciliation and statehood application have brought about further strain. The Israeli blockade on Gaza has entered its sixth year, with continued serious humanitarian consequences for 1.6 million people, of which more than 50 per cent are under age 18."[9]

The blockade’s effects also extend beyond the restriction of food and other critical supplies.  For example, Palestinians who seek medical care must apply for a permit to leave the Gaza Strip.  A report by the WHO states that in 2011, 10% of these permits applied for by Palestinians seeking medical care were denied with no reason stated, causing at least six Palestinian deaths.[10]

These startling reports, which detail the unspeakable misery daily endured by Palestinians in Gaza, conform to Israel’s stated goal for the blockade, which was candidly expressed in 2007 by Dov Weinglass,[11] an aide to Ariel Sharon (the brutal Israeli Prime Minister responsible for multiple terrorist atrocities including the facilitation of the Sabra and Chatila massacres[12]).  Weinglass said that the blockade aimed to “put the Palestinians on a diet.”  Only a psychopath could regard the cruelty inflicted by the blockade with such flippancy.

            To make matters worse, the effects of Israel’s last invasion of Gaza in 2008, which Amnesty International described as “22 days of death and destruction[13], are still felt by Palestinians as this new attack begins.  Due to the blockade, Palestinians have had extreme difficulty rebuilding Gaza’s infrastructure, which was obliterated in that 2008 attack along with 1,400 people, the vast majority of whom were innocent civilians.[14]

            Incredibly, none of this barbarism –the blockade, the occupation, or the 2008 invasion—is discussed in the American media’s presentation of the current conflict.  It is as though history is irrelevant, or non-existent.  All we need to know to form a judgment is that there were rockets, and now Israel is responding.  How absurd.  One might imagine a Palestinian father living under the effects of Israel’s blockade, watching his children suffer.  Can anyone seriously be surprised when that father turns to violence against the people who are starving them?

            Israel’s occupation has persisted now for over forty years.  Since 1967, it has continually built illegal settlements in the West Bank (and at times in Gaza), further alienating the Palestinian people from their land.  Today, the settlement enterprise continues, while the Israeli politicians who are funding it unctuously declare their desire for peace.  It is out of this sordid history that Palestinian rocket –fire is borne.  But the American press doesn’t want to talk about it.

           

---

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/15/world/meast/gaza-israel-strike/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

[2] http://www.foxnews.com/

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-assault.html?pagewanted=2&hp&_r=0

[4] http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/un-independent-panel-rules-israel-blockade-of-gaza-illegal-1.384267

[5] http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/suffocating-gaza-israeli-blockades-effects-palestinians-2010-06-01

[6] Ibid.

[7] http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/06/21/israelgaza-easing-blockade-imports-first-step

[8] http://www.unicef.org/oPt/General_fact_sheet.pdf

[9] Ibid.

[10] http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/palestine2012/palestine2012-12.pdf

[11] http://www.juancole.com/2012/10/creepy-israeli-planning-for-palestinian-food-insecurity-in-gaza-revealed.html

[12] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/a-preventable-massacre.html?pagewanted=all

[13] http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/015/2009

[14] Ibid.

 

The case of the Trayvon Martin shooting has been a fascinating litmus test of the true commitment of the American public to justice.

Virtually the day after the shooting, the shooter, 28 year old George Zimmerman, was convicted not only of first-degree murder, but of a hate crime motivated by racial hostility and profiling.  His charge, trial and conviction proceeded in the ever infallible court of public opinion, which of course did not grant him the opportunity to defend himself.  Yes, you may remember this incisive judicial body from its past exploits.  It is the same court which supported the hapless invasion and destruction of two countries in the last decade; which supports the death penalty, the Israeli Occupation, and is "equally divided" on marriage apartheid; and which, in its most heinous crime, made Twilight one of the highest grossing films and novels of all time.  This list of course abbreviates the fine accomplishments of the court of public opinion, which are far too many to expound upon fully.  Still, the point is well made: the court of American public opinion always gets it right.

One of the greatest strengths of this court is that it does not bother itself to require "evidence" to support its judgments.  "Evidence" is, after all, generally a buzz-kill; it takes far more effort to analyze and then judge than it does to simply judge right off the bat.  It is thus very unsurprising that the public generally prefers the latter course.  This preference was well demonstrated in the Trayvon Martin shooting.  When George Zimmerman was convicted by the court of public opinion on the charge of racially motivated murder, the court offered no serious evidence to support its judgment.  In fact, the court completely disregarded the most reliable source of all.  The Florida police, who were on the scene in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, let Zimmerman go, concluding that his story of self-defense was plausible after documenting his broken nose and the other injuries he had sustained which were obviously the result of a scuffle.  Now, one may say "that's because the police are racist," but this infantile allegation hardly needs rebuttal, since those making it present no evidence that any cops on the scene were racist whatsoever.  The fact is that Zimmerman was released--perhaps mistakenly--because it did not seem to the Florida police, nor would it to any sensible observer, that the story of unprovoked, racially motivated, cold-blooded murder was supportable when the alleged psychopathic killer is covered in his own blood as a result of what clearly was mutual combat.  

Martin's supporters, led by his grieving mother,  insisted--and continue to insist--that the Martin shooting was racially motivated, cold-blooded murder.  These claims did not need support because the court of public opinion did not demand them, it having already sided with the prosecution.  Zimmerman's claim of having his head smashed by Martin was dismissed as absurd--until a security camera tape clearly showed a  grotesque looking wound on his head when he arrived at the police station the night of the shooting.  Zimmerman's claims of a broken nose were chided--until, on May 16, 2012, evidence reports were released including a doctor's report that Zimmerman's nose was, in fact, broken, and that he sustained other injuries consistent with his story of self-defense.  At every juncture thus far, Zimmerman's claims, and those of his supportive family, have been dismissed by the public, despite the emergence of evidence that may be confirmatory of at least some of his story.

What is truly despicable about all this?  In the United States, criminal justice is supposed to grant a presumption of truth to the claims of defendants, not deride them outright.  The ideals to which Americans claim to be committed--freedom, human rights--are embedded in the American criminal justice system, which requires an extremely high burden of proof be met before any defendant is convicted of a crime and punished by the State.  This system is designed to prevent the abuse of power by governments against their constituencies. 

So, what gives?  In the United States, those accused of crimes should be vociferously defended against all charges, by all people, until such time as evidence is presented in a serious court, presided over by a serious judge, with serious lawyers and a serious jury, that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Is this not what any American would expect upon being accused of a crime?  Ask yourself: would you want to be George Zimmerman--a man who, based on the evidence of his broken nose, head wound and other injuries, may actually have been acting in justifiable self-defense when he shot Trayvon Martin, yet who nonetheless faces the ire of a public that is almost universally persuaded of his guilt?  The answer is obviously no.  Any innocent person accused would expect a fair trial in advance of a judgment of culpability.  Sadly, it seems such expectations would go unheeded in this nation, so long as intellectual infants like Al Sharpton can make the issue about race-relations, absent any evidence to support such categorization.

The point of this tirade is not to suggest that George Zimmerman is innocent.  He may in fact be guilty--he was charged with second-degree murder, which is the most serious charge that could have fairly been brought against him.  The point is this: our criminal justice system is designed to subjectively favor those accused of crimes and not their accusers.  Zimmerman became a despised figure in the eyes of a public that deemed him a racist and a cold-blooded murderer without any compelling evidence for such a judgment and far in advance of a trial where he could adequately defend himself.  This represents a travesty of justice--not only because it will prejudice Zimmerman's right to a fair trial, but because the values Americans tend to stand for were discarded entirely in the process.

Now that more and more evidence is emerging that makes Zimmerman's self-defense claims more plausible, those who were so quick to convict him, posting fatuous diatribes on social media and ranting about race-relations in the press, should apologize.  Zimmerman may not be innocent, but based on the weight of the evidence so far available, he is far from definitely guilty. 

The President Supports Gay Marriage

Voila!  As if anyone did not already know, President Obama supports marriage equality.  There is nothing surprising about a relatively young, brilliant progressive who holds such a basic moral view.  And it is fitting that the first African-American president would also be the first to openly condemn marriage apartheid.  But sadly, as is so often the case in this nation, this positive step forward--and it is an important one--is overshadowed by the realities it reveals.

First, the president's announcement reminds us just how dishonest our political system is.  Obama would have us believe that his views on marriage equality have "evolved."  Yes, a brilliant constitutional law scholar with a deeply personal connection to the scarred legacy of "separate but equal" is trying to convince us that he only recently had an epiphany: "separate but equal" is wrong.  Sure.  If you believe that, I have a timeshare in Key West for you.  It is pretty obvious that the president has always held this view, and was just afraid to come out and say so.

Some may say: well, that's just politics.  To those voices I reply: no, that's cowardice.  It is true that in the current state of affairs one must transform into a Bible-thumping, flag-lapel wearing, military cheer-leading buffoon to get elected.  But  those who are willing to make such a transformation to secure a grip on the throat of power are neither entitled to, nor deserving of, respect.  Morally serious people object to such camouflage of conviction; so should the president.  After all, if no one was willing to wear a disguise to get elected, there might be honesty in politics.  Rather than vie for this--albeit lofty--objective, we content ourselves with lauding the president for revealing to us that, during his campaign and for four years after, he persistently lied about his views on a fundamental issue as a measure of political expediency.  And why?  Because he announced that he supports basic human rights?  It seems striking that such applause should greet such a substantively trivial thing as expression of support for human dignity.  But I suppose that any support for basic human rights is a triumph in an administration which has previously assassinated an American citizen, and which occupies two countries with zero moral or legal justification.

And that leads me to number two.  The second reason the president's announcement is not a cause for celebration: it reminds us just how backwards we are as a society.  That fifty percent of the country is opposed, without a semblance of a rational reason for so being, to the right of people to participate in the most sacred of all social traditions is astonishing.  This same half of the nation will, out of one side of its collective mouth, support the invasion of a country no matter how fatuous the justification, even when it leads to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of that country's indigenous people--casualties which, unbelievably, go unmentioned in the mainstream press, which typically prefers to note only American casualties.  But gays can't get married.  That's unspeakable.  We have to protect the "definition of marriage."  Whatever that means.  I wonder if the original definition of marriage--the creation of a property right in a woman's body for the use of the property-owner husband--is worthy of protection too?  And while we are protecting definitions, let us address "morality."  The definition of that term is certainly under attack.

So, yes.  It is a historic day.  And Barack Obama deserves credit for having basic moral courage--but not much.  If we are willing to heap praise merely for acting in alignment with basic moral truisms, only one conclusion can follow: we truly are morally bankrupt.