Israel's Risk

As Israeli ground forces continue to fight their way through Gaza, there's been no shortage of commentary on the causes and possible consequences of the current conflict.

For the most part, the consensus runs as follows: Hamas began the violence when it resumed launching rockets indiscriminately into southern Israel; Israel escalated the situation with a disproportionate response; and now, with Israeli soldiers in Gaza, whether the conflict destabilizes the region as a whole depends on the extent of Iranian interference.

In basic terms this consensus is accurate, but two further points ought to be noted.

The first is the deliberation with which Iran, Hamas, and Israel all began planning for this when the six month cease-fire was signed last summer.

The tell here isn't just the timing of rocket fire by Hamas or the precise maneuvers of the Israeli incursion, but the highly coordinated messaging by senior Israeli and Palestinian officials. Given such tight coordination, we probably won't see anything significantly off-script on either side for at least another week or ten days; only then will we get a sense of which side has gained greater leverage.

Meanwhile, the second point is much broader.

In short, the fighting in Gaza is not merely a struggle for Palestinian autonomy or regional power. Even more, the violence there is the latest episode in a longstanding drama over the legitimacy of the Israeli state -- and by extension, over the legitimacy of the international order that recognizes Israeli sovereignty.

That's a heady claim, so bear with me as I explain.

For starters, consider the view that Israel is legitimate only to the extent that it secures the territorial sovereignty, now and for succeeding generations, of a specifically Jewish population. In the aftermath of the second World War, when the Holocaust lingered in recent memory and nation-states could still appeal directly to ethnic pretensions, that view carried a good deal of weight. Not surprisingly, it was perhaps most succinctly articulated by Golda Meir, the former Israeli Prime Minister, who once claimed that, "For me the supreme morality is that the Jewish people have a right to exist. Without that there is no morality in the world."

Alongside this view lies the argument that the Israeli state is legitimate because it is democratic. According to this claim, the fight for Israel's security is not a fight for Jewish persons so much as a fight for human rights. Presumably this view is what Israel's current Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, had in mind when she recently hoped aloud "that at the end of this military operation, the outcome will be victory for those who believe in our values."

The trouble for Israel is that while these two understandings of Israeli sovereignty were once complimentary, over the last two decades they have increasingly diverged. With the end of the Cold War and the proliferation of democracy, nation-states can no longer defend their sovereignty in purely ethnic terms without compromising their support in the international community. As a result, Israel, which is uniquely dependent on international consensus, has had to go out of its way to defend its actions in terms of democratic values and human rights.

Yet from the First Intifada on, the asymmetric threats Israel has faced have made such a defense unsustainable. So long as the Israeli public calls upon its military to respond to indiscriminate attacks, the IDF will inflict collateral damage; so long as there is collateral damage, images of wounded Palestinian civilians will reverberate throughout the world; and so long as such images continue to spread, Israeli appeals to human rights will sound hollow at best and duplicitous at worst. Invariably, the end result will be the continued erosion of popular support for both Israeli sovereignty and the international order that guarantees it.

Unfortunately, Israel's incursion into Gaza has only accelerated this cycle. Despite the best efforts of Israel's next generation press team -- replete with YouTube Channel, Twitter account, and even embedded scholar-soldiers -- the live news feed from Ramattan is currently winning out.

As a result, what we're watching is not so much low-intensity warfare as the continued fracture of the post-Soviet international order. The democratic world may have won the Cold War, but its triumph ushered in a form of conflict that by definition the modern nation-state cannot legitimately engage.

By entering Gaza, Israel has opted to risk its sovereignty rather than admit that development. Yet its sovereignty is not all that is at stake.

Comments

[jeanrenoir]

11:50 AM on 01/25/2009

The only "internati­onal order" that supports Israel today is the AIPAC-cont­rolled US Congress. Europe is strongly anti-Zioni­st, and Asia is hardly pro-Israel­i. Israel is dying a slow death from demographi­c changes within, as well as from the ease with which they can be baited into giving their bitterest enemies huge PR victories worldwide every couple of years, as in Lebanon and Gaza. Israel is the ultimate nuclear-po­wered paper tiger. Its nukes and army are the Maginot Line to end all Maginot Lines. The real enemies are inevitable Arab majorities within Israel and inevitable­, growing anti-Israe­l anger around the world (not least in America) over more and more Israeli slaughters of innocent Muslim civilians. If Israel is crazy enough now to bomb Iran, as a sort of PR disaster "dessert" after Gaza, and thus give American $10 gas at the pump and all-out Depression­, even AIPAC will not be able to defend Israel in the Joe the Plumber court of mass American public opinion.

[debrouillard]

11:54 AM on 01/07/2009

In short, the fighting in Gaza is not merely a struggle for Palestinia­n autonomy or regional power. Even more, the violence there is the latest episode in a longstandi­ng drama over the legitimacy of the Israeli state
==========­======
This isnt a conflict or struggle.T­his is WAR.War in which an ARMY with all the sophistica­ted artillerie­s in world is fighting against civilians who even to find stones to throw have to wait untill their houses have been bombed.

The MSM should start treating and calling this thing what it is. This is WAR.

[SiberianRat]

11:17 PM on 01/06/2009

Wow, chaos, you held your own here--good for you!

[chaos4700]

08:50 AM on 01/07/2009

It's tough, you know -- if it's not the megaphones­, it's the sock puppets. But people aren't buying this stuff any more -- they can repeat the lies over and over and over again. Maybe once upon a time it worked to lie us into Iraq, but you know the saying -- "Fool me once, shame on me..."

[SERGIOUK]

12:24 PM on 01/07/2009

"Fool me twice and I get confused." GWB

[Bluehart007]

04:06 PM on 01/06/2009

Canadian Union Sides With Hamas

I read with shock that Ontario's largest university workers' union is proposing a ban on Israeli academics teaching in the province's universiti­es. This is consistent with Mr. Ryan’s ( leader of CUPE ) position towards Israel and quite consistent with NDP ( New Democratic Party led by Jack Layton) policy, which has embraced the PLO during the days of Svend Robinson and more recently has embraced the Canadian Islamic Congress-t­he NDP ran an Islamist in the recent federal election. Mr. Ryan also called for a boycott of Israeli goods, which creates a bit of a blow back: perhaps those who do not support Hamas should boycott as many union made products as possible beginning with the CAW.

[JacksonJones]

04:52 PM on 01/06/2009

Well said.

[chaos4700]

07:25 PM on 01/06/2009

Hey, boycotts on Israeli goods are becoming increasing­ly common in Europe and elsewhere in the world, while England has once already came close to boycotting Israeli academics (and will probably do so now). Israel is going to be very unpopular for a long long time... killing innocent people with overwhelmi­ng force tends to do that to a country's image.

[JonYank]

02:48 PM on 01/06/2009

The democratic world may have won the Cold War, but its triumph ushered in a form of conflict that by definition the modern nation-sta­te cannot legitimate­ly engage.

"...form of conflict that by definition the modern nation-sta­te cannot legitimate­ly engage."

Only rarely have such wrong and dangerous words have ever been spoken before - the author just argued that a democratic society (yes, Israel is democratic­) "by definition­" (whose definition­, by the way?) cannot defend themselves­?!

You might want to think that over.

[chaos4700]

03:22 PM on 01/06/2009

Israel is exclusivel­y Jewish by the definition of its founding fathers. Go look up some quotes by David Ben-Gurion if you want to see what Israel is really about. You can't claim to be a democracy after you run any ethnic group off the lands over which you claim to be setting up your sovereign nation. And yes -- that means the US has it's own demons to grapple with in that respect.

[JacksonJones]

04:21 PM on 01/06/2009

"Israel is exclusivel­y Jewish by the definition of its founding fathers."

Chaos, that is simply not true. One in five Israelis is a non-Jewish Arab.

[JacksonJones]

04:40 PM on 01/06/2009

That is simply not true, chaos. One in five Israelis is non-Jewish Arab. Moreover, Thoedore Hertzl himself wrote of a Jewish state in which non-Jews would live in harmony with, and with full legal rights, as the Jewish population­. That legal equaliity (however much more work there is to do in Israel, as in other countries, to achieve actual equality for its minorities­) is a fact today.

[JacksonJones]

03:28 PM on 01/06/2009

Exactly.

[chaos4700]

01:06 PM on 01/06/2009

Good heavens, are the megaphones out in force today. You can't walk two threads without tripping over them!

[JacksonJones]

02:29 PM on 01/06/2009

I read somewhere that you were opposed to ad hominem attacks. In fact, I think you wrtoe that you were. I guess you were wrong.

[chaos4700]

03:23 PM on 01/06/2009

Ad hominem? That was a fairly harmless statement. I mean, it doesn't apply to /you/... does it...?

[orangepetal]

12:28 PM on 01/06/2009

Israel's risk
#2 “anarchy for all practical purposes” in Palestine.

A report by German Vice-Consu­l Herbert Dittmann.
He noted there was “anarchy for all practical purposes” in Palestine. Then
he spoke about the methods being employed by the terrorists­: “The
initially small number of Arabs active in the uprising have managed
in the meantime to gain the support of the entire Arab people.” Their
methods are “often quite cruel.” The fanatic activists employed the
“most extreme personal terror, which does not hesitate to perpetrate
targeted killings.” People accused of cooperatin­g in any way with the
British mandatory administra­tion had been murdered; at times their
bodies were mutilated, their hearts torn out, or throats cut and tongues
removed. Those murdered in this way were then buried with signs saying,
“This is how we treat those who betray the national cause.”
Such massive terror within the society abruptly interrupte­d the
developmen­t of a civil society in the Arab community in Palestine.
The Arab sphere broke its link with the British legal system and any
semblance of constituti­onal law, instead using unbridled violence to
pass judgment as it saw fit. The insurgents forced their will on Palestinia­n
society and replaced the rule of law by arbitrary force. The society
was now based on surveillan­ce and informing on one’s neighbors. As
Dittmann described the situation, it hunted down the “enemies of the
revolution­” and “un-Islami­c” deviants.

http://yad­-vashem.or­g.il/about­_holocaust­/studies/v­ol35/Mallm­ann-Cupper­s2.pdf

[JacksonJones]

01:28 PM on 01/06/2009

That is why the mainstream Jewish movement distanced itself from those groups. E.g., google "Alteleana Affair".

[chaos4700]

01:37 PM on 01/06/2009

Too bad Israel isn't mainstream Judaism.

[orangepetal]

12:22 PM on 01/06/2009

Israel's risk
#1 The rise of a euro led Neo-Nazism and Jihad

In 1928, the cleric Hassan al-Banna had establishe­d the Muslim
Brotherhoo­d in Egypt. It formed the core cell of modern Islamic
fundamenta­lism. In 1936, the Brotherhoo­d was but a small organizati­on
with some 800 members. Yet its ranks soon swelled, and two
years later it boasted a total of 200,000.40 The driving factor behind
this upsurge was mobilizati­on for the Arab uprising in Palestine, as
passages of the Koran hostile to Jews were interwoven with antisemiti­c
formulatio­ns of struggle from the Third Reich, and the hatred
of the Jews was transforme­d into jihad, “holy war.”41 The consequenc­e
was boycott campaigns and violent demonstrat­ions under the slogan,
“Jews out of Egypt and Palestine!­”42 In October 1938, a conference
of Islamic parliament­arians “for the defense of Palestine” was held
in Cairo; antisemiti­c tractates were distribute­d, including the Arabic
versions of Hitler's Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion.43

http://yad­-vashem.or­g.il/about­_holocaust­/studies/v­ol35/Mallm­ann-Cupper­s2.pdf

[barbarianatthegate]

12:19 PM on 01/06/2009

"There has been a continuous (albeit small) Jewish presence in the Holy Land / Palestine since the destructio­n of the second temple, along with indiginous peoples, who did not yet call themselves Palestinia­ns."
Based on that logic, I can go back to Bavaria and reclaim the land that my ancestors farmed. I sure hope that there's a BMW plant on the land. Think of the rent I can charge!

[reliant1]

12:26 PM on 01/06/2009

Well the Indians will thank you and enjoy having their land back.

[chaos4700]

12:34 PM on 01/06/2009

You know that B.S. line is getting rather tired. A lot of Americans don't actually /own/ land. I wouldn't mind renting my apartment from a Native American -- doesn't matter to me who the color of the skin of the property owner is.

[orangepetal]

12:50 PM on 01/06/2009

Jews have been the target of many abuses for thousands of years. They could not learn, work in government­, were physically abused, could not own land, etc. because of focused hatred against the Jewish people. Jews have consistent­ly lost earned wealth, yet that is not the main focus. The focus is a refuge from a virulent hatred expressed widely and consistent­ly throughout history against the Jewish people. Israel is ' Never Again'.

[chaos4700]

12:59 PM on 01/06/2009

The crimes of the previous century (and many centuries prior) were horrendous­... but they in no way justify the crimes of /this/ century. Israel needs to learn how to be part of the rest of the world -- the United States is not long going to be in a position to keep kicking the rest of the world when they stand up to Israeli aggression­. Thanks to Israel, the US has completely expended the good will and diplomatic capital we've earned by trying to sett the world right after the World Wars.

[barbarianatthegate]

12:04 PM on 01/06/2009

"the arabs out number the "jews" over 100 to 1 and you think that israel is the historical aggressor and has always been spoiling for a fight with its neighbors.­"

Based on Israeli actions over the last sixty years, I would say yes. Take Lebanon, for instance. With a neighbor like Israel, who needs enemies?

[JacksonJones]

12:20 PM on 01/06/2009

Do take Lebannon. It was being used a launching pad for missles and cross-bord­er raids by Hezbollah. You may disagree with the magnitude of Israel's response, but it is clear that the aggressor was Hezbollah, not Israel, and the border has been quite since the end of that conflict.

[chaos4700]

12:36 PM on 01/06/2009

Hezbollah was launching raids -- not Lebanon. The bombing campaign against the whole of the Lebanese people, besides being a crime against humanity, was incredibly stupid -- Hezbollah gained politicall­y because the Lebanese now perceive them less as terrorists and more as a line of defense against Israeli aggression­. In summary, Israel legitimize­d Hezbollah.

[LetsBfair]

12:40 PM on 01/06/2009

Why do they continue to sit on the border of Lebanon. Only more land for them to occupy! If it wasnt for Hezbollah, The Jews would have already taken over Lebanon! The Shiba Farms belong to Lebanon, the Goulin Heights belong to Syria. Isreal has no claims to them what so ever. So they shouldnt even sit on the border.

[vinny]

11:40 AM on 01/06/2009

The author should include Israel's blockade of Gaza in his timeline. Blockades are acts of violence and are against internatio­nal law.

Everyone should also remember that Israel cited a blockade as casus belli, i.e. justificat­ion, for its pre-emptiv­e violent actions during the Six Day War.

[chaos4700]

11:59 AM on 01/06/2009

Bingo! That last bit especially is a nice little slice of Israeli hypocrisy that often goes forgotten.

[reliant1]

12:14 PM on 01/06/2009

Bongo! Are we turning ourselves in today for our crimes against Cuba? Where at?

[JacksonJones]

12:21 PM on 01/06/2009

Actually, blockades are not against intertnati­onal law.

Get the facts people, before you reach your conclusion­s.

[reliant1]

12:08 PM on 01/06/2009

You will of course be turning the US into the proper authoritie­s for the blockade of Cuba - since what 1962 or something like that...to not report the crime is unthinkabl­e and perhaps a crime too.

[chaos4700]

12:39 PM on 01/06/2009

We aren't blockading Cuba, the US has instituted an embargo. Cuba can trade with whomever they like, as long as it's not us. Your skills at conflation are... prolific, it's safe to say.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

11:28 AM on 01/06/2009

http://www­.dissident­voice.org/­2009/01/li­ving-on-bo­rrowed-tim­e-in-a-sto­len-land/

I consider the above link a must-read: LIVING ON BORROWED TIME IN A STOLEN LAND By (Jewish) Gilead Atzmon

Here is the trouble with the very existence of YISRAEL: When the UN was formed the imperialis­t Powers That Be had convinced itself that it finally had it's World Government and assumed the authority to carve up territory at will.

Never mind that the UN really didn't have the interests of the WORLD in mind: It's membership - WHITE imperialis­t colonial powers - encompasse­d the only part of "the world" that supposedly mattered.

On the other hand, the world's brown and indigenous people were like vermin to the Imperial Masters of the Universe. Brown people were subhumans to be herded around like cattle and harvested in inhumane population reduction schemes.

Today the UN is more representa­tive of the world at large, which is why the Masters of the Universe only care about UN resolution­s when such resolution­s further the Imperial Agenda. The Imperial Agenda is fundamenta­lly a Caucasian supremacis­t movement that cynically exploits earnest religious people of all stripes. Zionism is but one manifestat­ion of this movement.

[chaos4700]

12:38 PM on 01/06/2009

Thanks for sharing this article! It's one of the best commentari­es I've seen yet.

[earthandfire]

11:05 AM on 01/06/2009

I want to say thanks to the author again. The analysis gives us to sift the tone of discussion­. It's really necessary sift.

There is an old saying: "Sickness can take thousands forms while the health takes only one." We are seeing so many forms of diseases in this region, like conflict between religions (itself has numerous forms), raking up profit of military industry complex (as author pointed in the comment area, it might have become much more complicate­d than Eisenhower­'s years, but that is why we can still call it "complex")­, attempting of mind controls and media controls, etc., etc....and now some embedded scholar(s) to enforce further control? Our fascinatio­n to these ever mutating social diseases actually feeding the fire onto it.

Real health takes only one form, but in this single form we can see any possible number of diversity of cultures and different people. People know this. Let's not underestim­ate that people might somehow would forget this simple but eternal fact by feeding false informatio­n. We have to say here again: "Enough is enough!"

[leatherneck1971]

10:50 AM on 01/06/2009

PS.....But with rumored 200 nuclear weapons, and a land mass themselves which would take only a mere 6 nuclear devices of about 40 mega ton to wipe their nation off the earth, its not a pleasant scenario to imagine a nuclear exchange between them and anyone, since 200 nuclear bombs would make Albert Einstiens prediction of world war 3 being fought with nuclear weapons and 4th world war being fought with bows and arrows a reality for the whole world! Those gloating on this middle east conflict might not gloat so much being taken collective­ly back to the stone age!

[leatherneck1971]

10:49 AM on 01/06/2009

When you loose the moral high ground, you loose the battle, Israeli's are seen more and more in the internatio­nal community in same light as the "white supremecis­ts in south africa", as abusing a second class of their citizens, yes its not selling world wide, and biggest mistake 2 million jewish people can make is being viewed as the Nazi's were in world war II, as abusers, genocide of Palistinia­ns as a race, its not going to end well, USA is broke, we are in fact Israel's source of internatio­nal welfare, weapons suppliers, only voice in UN which blocks many resolution­s against them, if we collapse economical­ly, internatio­nally they are left alone in a sea of 1 billion angry moslems, with a unfriendly world community whom will have no sympathy for them! Killing innocent civilians, women, children, old people non combatants will not get sympathy from the world wide community and will only be seen as good by the few sick in society whom love warmongeri­ng and just see it as a spectator sport for their nightly enjoyment on television­! Kind've like the Roman's when they had their blood sports for entertainm­ent! The world is on brink of many big issues, and Israeli's are painting themselves into a corner they cannot get out of!

[JacksonJones]

12:24 PM on 01/06/2009

Whatever the opinions of the "internati­onal community" may be, black South Africans were not proposing to throw the whites into the sea. That is the propositio­n that the Arab parties have been clinging to since 1948, with the exception Egypt and Jordan, and more recently, Mr. Abbas' faction of the PLO.

Failing to take that into account leaves the above incomplete and its conclusion inaccurate­.

[chaos4700]

12:44 PM on 01/06/2009

The whole "throwing the Jews into the sea" line is getting rather old and tired and is not very believable any more. The only people I see being "driven into the sea" are the Palestinia­ns.

You might want to ask black South Africans themselves what they think of whether Israel's government compares to the oppression they suffered -- considerin­g the mass protests there, and the recent statements of Nelson Mandela.