The Future of Civilization

The tight, absurd parameters of "peace," as they are drawn by the military model we continue to believe in, make real peace --neither bitter nor temporary -- impossible even to imagine. God save us, for instance, from New York Times editorials, which inflict as much damage on civilians as F-16s.

"Israel must defend itself," the paper intoned a few days into the bombing attack on Gaza that quickly left 350 people dead, expressing regret only that the action was "unlikely to weaken" Hamas. The editorial affected a neutral assessment of the situation that failed to mention either the Israeli occupation of Palestine or the month-and-half-long blockade of Gaza that preceded the bombardment and, among much other deprivation, left the region's few hospitals drastically undersupplied with medicine, gauze or even space to treat the flood of newly wounded.

With that omission securely in place, and clear signals emanating from every sentence that the right of heavily armed U.S. allies to bomb powerless Third World "enemies" into good behavior would not be questioned, the Times editorial remembered its compassionate side sufficiently to declare: "Israel must make every effort to limit civilian casualties."

How decent of them. Or as Jerry Seinfeld might have put it: Yada yada yada.

I quote from the Times, of course, not as one paper among thousands, but as the Paper of Record and exemplar of the mainstream, corporate media's unified voice on geopolitics and the future of civilization. This is the voice of moral relativism and denial. Nowhere in it is there room for something other than a military solution to chronic global troubles, and that solution flows in only one direction. And nowhere is there the least real humanity toward the punishees, whose role is to suffer, die and retaliate just enough to keep the cycle going for another round. "Israel must defend itself . . ."

And thus the civilian dead -- whatever that term actually means -- merit the barest sniff of a eulogy as, alas, the regrettable byproduct of the high-tech pummeling their country or territory has called upon itself, before being consigned to some mass grave in paragraph five. By gliding over the dead, the media are free to discourse on grand strategy, as though war is rational and contained and does something other than spread toxins, hatred and its own ongoing inevitability -- and as though "winning" such one-sided, preposterous displays of power actually means something, or is possible.

Whether reporting on Iraq, Afghanistan or Gaza, our media spare us eyewitness accounts of the hell we create in pursuit of our interests, such as Safa Joudeh's live Gaza diary on ElectronicIntifada.com:

"There were piles and piles of bodies in the locations that were hit," she wrote on Dec. 27. "As you looked at them you could see that a few of the young men were still alive, someone lifts a hand, and another raises his head. They probably died within moments because their bodies were burned, most had lost limbs, some of their guts were hanging out and they were all lying in pools of blood.

"Outside my home," she goes on, "which is close to the two largest universities in Gaza, a missile fell on a large group of young men, university students. They'd been warned not to stand in groups as it makes them an easy target, but they were waiting for buses to take them home. Seven were killed, four students and three of our neighbors' kids. . . . Nothing could stop my 14-year-old brother from rushing out to see the bodies of his friends laying in the street after they were killed. He hasn't spoken a word since."

No war, no military action, no act of self-defense or revenge has a legitimacy that exempts the perpetrators from responsibility for the consequences they create. And every bombing campaign -- certainly one against the most densely populated region on Earth -- will wreak the sort of searing havoc Joudeh describes.

I refuse to believe that any long-term human good will come out of a geopolitical strategy that casually inflicts this sort of suffering on people, and fear for the souls of the complicit parties, especially if they lack the courage to acknowledge what they do without reducing their victims to expendable, subhuman status.

And I cannot read something like the New York Times editorial quoted above without feeling an urgent need to fill the void that it opens. Peace on this planet is possible, but only if we make ourselves bigger than war. This can happen only with the sort of genuine openness to our "enemies" that is documented, for instance, in a Peace Now video of Israeli and Palestinian students engaging in dialogue with one another that I viewed on the organization's Web site.

"It's very easy to dehumanize someone you don't know," a student says at one point, glowing from her realization that we're all in this together. The implications of this simple truth are the only antidote I know of to the suicidal folly of war. On a day in which I have endured too much news from the Middle East, they burst in my heart like a symphony of peace.

- - -

Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at [e-mail] or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.

© 2009 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

Comments

[alexa07]

It seems that the major newspapers have become nothing more than conduits for the official doctrines of the day. By doing so, they are creating their own irrelevance. In contrast, the vivid images coming in from the Arabic-speaking networks (Al-Jazeera & others) are electrifying much of the world, including many Americans who are paying attention to them. Time will tell, but no one has forgotten the images that came out of Lebanon in July '06. The world won't soon forget these new images.

[Michale32086]

@Ivatsol

}}}}
civilized warfare..?

Bet I could find you in Home Depot on any given day because you sound like a tool.
Your kind of sheepish short sighted thinking is the reason why no real change can take place in the world.
{{{{{

Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational counter to my argument and must, therefore, resort to immature personal attacks.

Your concession of my superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant..

Michale.....

[William1950]

this is a comment to the posts below as much as anything... perhaps the earth will be hit by a meteor or an asteroid soon. that would defend the territory that we took when we were born on this planet. and then the rightful owners of the planet could blow the ashes of us away and there would be no nastiness any more....
All the BS about who is right and who is wrong and who or what constitutes an act of terror or is a terrorist is wrong... it is all wrong. we are all wrong. our religion is all wrong. our politics is all wrong.

[Michale32086]

CONT

{{{{{
What I'm trying to point out (in the nicest possible way, of course), is that your definition makes no logical sense. It sounds a lot like the convoluted (and deceitful) reasoning Bush & Co.'s applied for the last six years.
}}}}}

It's a definition borne of over two decades working it, training for it, living it and breathing it... By "it" I mean CT ops..

It's not perfect by any means.. For example, under the definition, the Boston Tea Party could be construed as an act of terrorism, although making the case that the BTP was "violent" would be a stretch..

Thanx for being rational and logical about your response. I took your first response to be snooty and responded in kind.

My sincerest apologies..

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

CONT

}}}}
Is that what you meant? Or, are you saying that any Palestinians become "legitimate military targets" when they happen to get in the way?
{{{{

Definitely not.. While military leaders (singlely) ARE legitimate military targets and military personnel (plural) are legitimate military targets, the specific targeting of innocent civilains (IE non combatants) is one of the defining aspects of terrorism..

}}}}
2. I'd say the whole reason for the Israeli response is to "...further a political, economic(al) or ideological agenda" - to stop Hamas' attacks and protect Israeli citizens and property. Otherwise, what are they doing it for?
{{{

I would say that you would be correct. But, because they are not targeting innocent civilians or the like, their actions are not to be considered terrorism..

Intention plays a big part in defining terrorism, but not the only part, to be sure...

CONT

[Michale32086]

@Cassandra2

}}}
Seeing as you seem to be unfamiliar with sarcasm, let's try a different approach...
{{{

Yes, lets...

{{{
1. There's nothing in your definition concerning "legitimate military targets". Does that mean, if Hamas strikes Israeli military installations, they're no longer terrorists?
{{{

The definition of Hamas is already set. I doubt there can be much done to change what Hamas is or what the world perceives Hamas to be.

However, if an organization confines it's attacks and strikes to legitimate military targets, said organization would not be classified as a terrorist organization.

}}}
Would that give them legitimacy?
{{{

As I indicate, too much water is under the bridge for Hamas to gain ANY legitimacy.. However, it's POSSIBLE, albeit unlikely that Hamas could pull an "Ayers" and regain respectability if it swore off of terrorism. For the general population anyways. To me, like Ayers, they will always be terrorists.. But that's probably just me and those like me..

}}}}
On the other hand, your definition seems to imply that, as long as the Israelis intend to strike "legitimate military targets" (whatever those are when your definition is applied to someone not in uniform), any collateral damage is perfectly acceptable.
{{{

I wouldn't characterize it as "acceptable".. I would dread the time that I (or anyone else) would find collateral damage "acceptable"...

However, it would not qualify as terrorism, which is the heart of this discussion..

CONT

[Romulus]

I've been reading these types of comments for years. Nothing ever changes. You know why? Because you all focus on who's right and who's wrong when one side or the other ACTS. I don't recall anyone focusing on the fundamental issue...both sides want the same land and feel they are entitled to it-ALL of it.

I think that it's remotely possible that Israel would agree to share the land if they could be guaranteed security but I doubt it. I doubt it because they don't trust the Palestinians The Palestinian Authority, through Mahmoud Abbas, has declared that Israel has a right to exist, but members of Fatah have stated that is just a ruse. Ask Abbas how he feels about the Palestinian Right of Return: he will tell you that is non-negotiable. If all the original Palestinians Arabs who lived in the Palestinian Mandate in 1947-48 and their decendants were to return to what is now known as Israel, before long they would be in the majority and would vote to dissolve the Jewish state.

Hamas does not even pretend to recognize Israel's right to exist. They flat out state that a Jewish state has no right to exist in the Middle East and that all the land belongs to the Palestinian Arabs. And the hard-core Zionist settlers claim that all the land belongs to the Jews.

We need to focus on the core issue rather than who's to blame for the violence.

[IGNSTHMD]

I dont know, but the efforts of these two countries seem to be that they are to eraticate one from the other but neither has the ability, the gall or the resolve to do so. What they do have is a commonality in the way they quell seated fustrations and chauvinisms "using" violence as conflict resolution neither side waxing or waning to the human sacrifice that is the greater sacrifice that embodies they're simulateous vulnerabilities and righteousness' of resposibility and indignation. How long they have fed into the ignorance and waste of a show of force which has neither the intent of fruition nor the courage of discresion, but has all the blood shed of a massacre that has been warranted by the insatiable greed of loss, is not as important as the respect and resposibility for life that both share. There is a way to prioritize life and it sounds as if that is getting harder to deny. It looks as if the loss of life is moving the violence rather that a lack of peace. Guns cost peace, bombs wipe away great revelation, words find the truth and love can not be denied. Love life

[SEQUOIABISON]

Thank you Mr Koehler for your brilliant compassionate article.

Finally a voice of reason amidst all this propaganda that Israel has a right to defend itself and shoot civilians like fish in a barrel, with American made weapons.

I blame the Bush administration for allowing the unconscionable behavior of the callous right wing Israeli government, this is like the heavy weight champion of the world starting a fight with a 6 year old little girl who threw a toy rattler at him, the champ responds with a hard left punch to the child's mid-section followed by a knock out punch to her head. Hey he had to stop those missiles. Over reacting, nah.

[anachoret]

Thank you for the links and for the article, Mr Koehler.

Seeing the dialog broaden beyond the likes of the Times here is almost as encouraging as the the dialog in the actual area of conflict. It is long overdue, and will hopefully be more effective than the cycle described in your post.

[kingbuzz111]

thank you. this is the truth. check out HOWARD ZINN on DEMOCRACY NOW.
he is brilliant as well.

[Michale32086]

@akhajawall

With the utmost respect, sir.. You are wrong..

"Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda."

Israel is targeting legitimately military targets. It's actions are FULLY and COMPLETELY within the purview and bounds of the Geneva Conventions and the rules of war.

Hamas is firing missiles blindly into Israeli civilian areas and placing the launchers, plus weapons storage and other military equipment within civilian areas. Both of these actions violate the Geneva Conventions and the rules of civilized warfare..

The loss of life amongst the innocent Palestinians is tragic, to be sure.

But responsibility for that loss of life lies completely with Hamas..

Michale....

[CyrusBeaucephus]

With no respect sir, you are wrong again

The fault can evenly be spread between Hamas, Isreal, and war-enablers in America ---like you Michale

[SiberianRat]

There's nothing respectful about saying, "you're wrong." Jeez man, how about "I don't agree," or "I have a different take" or something qualified? One can't engage in dialog with you because you are always 100% right in your mind. You always claim "it's proven" or "it's a fact," blah blah--no room for discussion. You say that the death of Palestinian civilians is tragic--I don't believe you believe that for one minute. There is no evidence in any of your comments that you have the slightest compassion for innocent Muslims. If you're a Zionist or so leaning, at least be open about it. Your dogmatic declarations are no more valid than Hamas'. You both believe that killing innocent people is justified as long as the outcome is the one you want.

[Michale32086]

OK, so I failed diplomacy 101.. Sue me...

I don't "believe" in killing innocent people. But you simply CANNOT hold Israel responsible for the actions of Hamas.

Let me put it to you another way.

Postulate a scenario where an omnipotent being came from space to bring Middle East peace. Assume that this being, in an effort to prevent the terrorist attacks on Israel (attacks you and I agree are wrong) makes it so that any time Hamas terrorists try to lauch a missile at Israel civilian neighborhoods, the missile will immediately explode, killing anyone within a 100 ft radius...

Hamas, being psychotically bent on Israel's destruction, ignores the warnings and continues to try and fire missiles at Israeli civilian neighborhoods.. The missiles explode immediately as promised and hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians are killed.

Now, tell me.

Who is responsible for those innocent Palestinian casualties??

Of course, the answer is Hamas...

How can Israel be blamed for the reckless actions of Hamas??

So it is in this situation. What does it matter whether the missiles are destroyed by an omnipotent alien or by Israeli bombs?? The fact is, it is HAMAS who is responsible.

No other logical or rational conclusion is possible..

Michale.....

[Clavis]

Well, wait -- are they military targets or are they terrorists?

If they are military targets, then does that mean there is an army to surrender to Israel?

Did the US Government bomb the block where those supposed terrorists were in Florida? Or did they use law enforcement techniques to find and arrest them?

Whenever somebody complains about the methods or some other detail of how Israel is conducting itself, somebody jumps up and says "Israel has a right to defend itself!" That's like me saying "I don't think you should wear that shirt" and you responding "Well, I'm not going to go outside NAKED!!!"

Obviously Israel needs to defend itself. The question is methods and strategies and whether the methods currently employed by Israel are actually doing good. Please stop pretending to misunderstand what people's concerns are.

[Michale32086]

People concerns seem to be the deaths in Gaza and they completely ignore that

A> it was Hamas' terrorism that prompted the response

and

B> it was Hamas' policy of placing military equipment in civilian areas that caused the deaths in Gaza...

But you seem to be a logical and rational person.

Let me ask you.

What could Israel do to stop the missile attacks??

Michale.....

[Cassandra2]

And, of course, you know why and what both sides are doing because you're simultaneously involved in both Israeli and Hamas' decision-making...?
Not to mention the fact that "ongoing and systematic attacks of violence (is there any other kind?) specifically targeted against innocent civilian persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economic(al-huh?) or ideological agenda" seems to apply to both parties...

[Michale32086]

Only if you pick put parts of the definition to suit your needs..

The simple fact is, Israel targets legitimate military targets.. By definition, this is NOT terrorism.

Michale.....

[Ivatsol]

civilized warfare..?

Bet I could find you in Home Depot on any given day because you sound like a tool.
Your kind of sheepish short sighted thinking is the reason why no real change can take place in the world.

[bermanator]

Yeah, civilized warfare. 5,000 years of military history occured before you were born. This conflict is infinitely less bloody than, say, the American Civil War, not to mention any war, ummm, ever...

Michale will pwn you every time, resistance is futile... :-P

[akhajawall]

To all concerned

" All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is people, politicians, and political leaders around the world either stay mum or shift the blame onto oppressed, occupied, and tormented"

What Israel is doing in the name of security onto impoverished and victimized Palestinians is a solid and ultimate State Sponsored Terrorism and same is true about India who has turned divided Kashmir into massive concentration camp on the Top of World.

As a naturalized Kashmir born American Citizen, disabled American Veteran and Forensic psychiatrist, I plead to my current president, Hon. President Bush to stop all aid to Israel and freeze the any relationship with India.

I suggest to incoming president elect, Hon. Barrack Obama to appoint outgoing president as special envoy to permanently, peacefully and amicably solve Israel-Palestinian Conflict and Hon. former President Bill Clinton to erase the line of conflict [LOC] between the divided people of Kashmir.

Yours truly,

COL. A.M.Khajawall [Ret]
Las Vegas NV USA

[SiberianRat]

Excellent comment--I agree whole-heartedly.

[tedbear]

Appointing "outgoing" President George W. Bush to anything is a bad idea. This is a man who needs to go to prison along with his VP and many of his cabinet. The entire world knows what he is, stupid and self-serving, the tool of Cheney and his greed.

[joebaggadonuts]

Pleading to the "Hon." president Bush???? In what way is he honorable?