Category Archives: War Between Israel and Hamas

Is Israel acting with Kindness?

Genocide, War Between Israel and Hamas

 

A good and respected friend of mine told me that to some extent Israel has been treating Palestinians with more “kindness” than their Arab “friends”. I don’t know if that is true, but I do know that using the word “kindness” to describe Israeli actions against Palestinians is a form of obscenity.

 

Whether Israelis actions do or not meet the standard of “genocide” in international law is not really the issue. What is important is that the Israeli response to a horrific attack has also been massive, continual, and indeed horrific.

 

Hamas is also is not innocent. Their actions too might have been genocidal. No matter what they should release the hostages. Palestinians and their supporters should be demanding the hostages be released.

 

An Israeli article in Israeli newspaper Haaretz  cited a well-regarded Israeli and international scholar, Nir Hasson has said, the number of Palestinian deaths in the war is much higher than figures by Hamas Ministry of Health’s (controlled by Hamas) which put the Palestinian deaths at over 57,000. He says its much closer to 100,000 and when you include related deaths caused by starvation and disease might even surpass that number.

 

As Fareed Zakaria said “at this level of 5% of the population this may be the worst case of war time death in the twentieth century.” Even the article critiquing this analysis said the death toll is “undoubtedly catastrophic and intolerable.” Isn’t that bad enough?

 

Fareed Zakaria, always a level headed commentator not given to hyperbole has called it “staggeringly high.” According to the UN, 1.9 million of Gaza’s 2.1 million people have been displaced by that war. It is difficult to think what bad description would be excessive in the circumstances. Just as hard as trying to think how possibly the word “kindness” could apply to the actions of Israel.

 

Israeli Genocide?

Genocide, War Between Israel and Hamas

 

I don’t know if Israel is committing genocide or not, but it sure does look like. As the saying goes, ‘If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck maybe it’s a duck.  That’s sort of how I feel about it.

 

Most knowledgeable people say Israel has killed more than 50,000 Palestinians in Gaza. At least 17,000 of those are children. Those are not Gaza fighters. 33,000 children have been injured. Many of those are now amputees. Scarred foe life.

 

What can possibly justify that? Israeli’s keep attacking hospitals, schools, residential complexes. They always say they are targeting Hamas.  But they make it clear, to attack one member of Hamas it doesn’t matter how many civilians or children are attacked too.  Is that good enough. That is reckless behavior.  Behavior of bullies. We are big and powerful and we can do it. We don’t care who gets hurt. That’s their attitude.

 

Then there is starvation which is rising precipitously. That is a direct result of Israeli policies. 50% of all children in Gaza are now suffering from severe malnutrition. And Canada and its western allies keep supporting Israel against Hamas even though it already has a massive superiority in weaponry.

 

Genocide scholar Omer Bartov claims Israelis are guilty of genocide, even though few specific statements have been made by Israeli leaders confirming a genocidal intent. First, he points out, most regimes that carry out genocide do not publicize it. Political leaders rarely make genocidal intent clear in their statements. If you look for such evidence you will never find genocide.

 

As Bartov said, “they don’t say we are carrying out genocide.”[1] Even Adolf Hitler made few such statements, he pointed out.  Leaders are almost always more circumspect than that. It is very rare that intent can be seen. It is inferred from facts on the ground. As Bartov explained, even in the case of Hitler that intent was clearly inferred from such facts even though he made few statements making it clear. There is no written order where he said, “Let’s carry out genocide.”

 

Is intent also clear in the case of Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders? Israeli supporters say the claims are ridiculous. Are they? In the case of the Israeli Minister of Defense saying they are “human animals” or “we won’t give them water.”  Or we won’t give them electricity. Such statements are incitement to his soldiers to carry out an act of genocide. The Israeli’s mobilized 300,000 reservists and sent them to Gaza and they heard what he had said. They knew what they were being called to do by their leaders. The Minster was saying to his soldiers these are not human beings, and we should not treat them like human beings.

 

For a long time Omer Bartov the genocide scholar there was insufficient evidence of genocide.  He has changed his mind on account of the accumulating evidence that is genocide.

 

Bartov also pointed out how Netanyahu recently said Israel wanted to get rid of Palestinians from Gaza and they were looking for other countries to take them in, “that is an international crime.”

 

Hamas should also release the hostages. There is not justification for their actions. It also might be genocidal. They just don’t have the claws that Israel has.

Genocide or not, the actions of Israel are horrendous. We shouldn’t be supporting that.

What is Genocide?

Genocide, War Between Israel and Hamas

Genocide scholar Omer Bartov  on a recent television show, explained that we tend to think genocide must look like it did in Nazi Germany. That is not the case. We need to look at how “genocide” is defined in international law. The Convention on Genocide defines ‘genocide” as follows:

“The intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:

  • killing members of the group;
  • causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…”

 

As Bartov said, “it does not necessitate the killing of all the people…it is the intent to destroy the group as a group. ”This is the legal definition. Of course, as Bartov pointed out to say killing 50,000 or 100,000 Palestinians including 17,000 children is not genocide is also morally horrifying. He also said, “If you remove a group from a territory and you make it impossible for it to reconstitute itself and you do that by starving it, by bombing it, by destroying everything there, that can and in my opinion does, conform to the definition of genocide.”

 

I know that many Israelis’, many Americans, and many Canadians take the position that Israel is just defending itself after a horrific attack. There is no doubt it was a horrific attack. But even when attacked, in their defence an attacked nation must act with some constraints. It cannot do whatever it wants to do in its own defence. The Israeli’s say Hamas attacked with genocidal intent when it attacked Israel and so far it has killed about 2% of the number of people Israel has killed in this battle. Bartov said,

“The attack by Hamas was a war crime, a crime against humanity, and could be described as a genocidal attack especially when you relate it to the Hamas Charter and there is no way to argue against that. That does not mean that the country responding to it may respond it to it by carrying out crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. Nor justify a massacre. A massacre does not justify a massacre. A Genocide does not justify a genocide.”

 

Bartov, also thinks it is a scandal that a country that was created by the international community as a direct consequence to crimes against humanity, war crimes, and acts of genocide is now committing those acts itself. And that is no reason for us to deny what it is doing.

Seeking out Violence

2024 Trip to South West United States, War between Hamas Israel 2023, War Between Israel and Hamas

 

Ever since October 7, 2023, the war in Gaza between Hamas and Israel has been in the news. It started with the brutal acts on civilians in Israel by Hamas. Israeli men, women, and children were raped, killed, and tortured beyond any semblance of morality or right. Hamas  claimed to be acting in defence but they broadcast the horrors they committed. They were proud of what they had done.

I recognize that the people of Gaza y have been victims of brutal subjugation by Israel for decades during which time they have made the life of Palestinians a version of hell on earth.  The actions of Israel at least since Netanyahu was elected have made it clear that Israel had no intent to negotiate in good faith an end to their occupation. That did not leave Palestinians with many good options. Yet, even such horrific treatment did not justify the actions taken by Hamas.  But it was always just a question of time before it exploded.

 

Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in Gaza recently made it clear what he intends: He said, “each Palestinian will take a knife to stab Israelis.”  He made it clear that he wanted to elicit a massive military response from Israel that would turn the world against Israel.  It did not matter how brutal his killers were. He did all these things he said, because he wanted Israel to be destroyed. The goal of the destruction of Israel justified all pain and violence without end. With enemies like that, Israel will have a hard time making peace, or believing in any peace that appears to be achieved.

Frankly, it difficult to find someone to support in this battle. But Canada like the United States,  has chosen to back Israel in this fight. I am not sure that makes any sense.

 

After 8 weeks of War

Extremism, Indigenous Treaties, War Between Israel and Hamas

 

According to UNICEF, whose numbers should be reliable, unlike those emanating from the Hama  officials which I frankly have no reason to believe are true, 5300 civilians and children have died in the Israeli air strikes. 115 children have been dying every day. And things are getting worse! That is what Holy War in the Holy Land looks like, not lmited war!

 

I also heard more civilians have died than in the near 2-year- war in Ukraine so far.  And Ukraine has been dealing with a ruthless blood-thirsty tyrant. Some have said Russia is the world’s most brutal regime in the world.

Israel, is supported militarily by the western countries like Canada, the United States, and United Kingdom. Canada called for a pause in fighting but not a cease-fire. It got what it asked for. Maybe it should asked for more.

It seems to me Canada might be supporting a war without limits. If that is the case, as some say, Canada is supporting war crimes. That, I think would be a first for Canada. That would not be something to be proud of. That would a a stain on our reputation. When friends see other friends going too far, the good friend would warn the friend. Good friends give each other the truth, even when its hard.  Especially when its hard.

 

No Limits No Soul

Extremism, Political Violence, War Between Israel and Hamas

 

A Statesperson, to warrant the title, must recognize, that even in war, there are limits and those limits must not be breached. In the heat of battle this is sometimes difficult. But whoever said the job of the Statesperson was easy? If it was easy we would have many statespersons.

According to John Rawls the American philosopher analyzing the decision the American president Truman made in Japan in World War II, this is what Truman said

 

“Truman once described the Japanese as beasts and to be treated as such; yet how foolish it sounds now to call the Germans or the Japanese barbarians and beasts! Of the Nazis and Tojo militarists, yes, but they are not the German and the Japanese people. Churchill later granted that he carried the bombing too far, led by passion and the intensity of the conflict. A duty of statesmanship is not to allow such feelings, natural and inevitable as they may be, to alter the course a democratic people should best follow in striving for peace. The statesman understands that relations with the present enemy have special importance: for as I have said, war must be openly and publicly conducted in ways that make a lasting and amicable peace possible with a defeated enemy, and prepares its people for how they may be expected to be treated. Their present fears of being subjected to acts of revenge and retaliation must be put to rest; present enemies must be seen as associates in a shared and just future peace “

These words are equally applicable to Netanyahu. The statesperson recognizes limits. Truman failed to do that. So has Netanyahu. I have not seem him recognize any limits. Hea will destroy Hama no matter what the costs.

Limits in war are more than just moral imperatives. As David French wrote to the Israeli’s in the New York Times, “Don’t lose your soul.”  No limits no soul.

 

Resist the Lure of Extremists

Extremism, War Between Israel and Hamas

 

Although the numbers of causalities are at best estimate,  it has been estimated that the number casualties of  the American bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki it has been estimated  that 69,000 people were killed and 65,000 injured in the bombing of Hiroshima  and 39,000 killed and 25,000 injured in bombing of Nagasaki. Those are big numbers. John Rawls argued that the bombing was not justified.

 

I would like to add something here to what John Rawls said in his analysis of America’s bombing of those two Japanese cities. The statesperson must be someone who can resist the lure of the extremists. This is not easy to do. Particularly in times of war when feelings were running high. In fact, in the Middle East this has proved impossible. But it is not impossible. Look at Martin  Luther King Jr and Nelson Mandela. And there are others. These are men and women who found there is another way. A way that rejects violence and rejects extremism. That is the only way forward in the furnace of the Middle East. That is the way of non-violence. It is almost the only thing that has never been tried.

 

The statesman or woman is not on offer in the Middle East. Not on any side, at least as far as I can see. Hamas embeds its soldiers among hospitals and schools to  make it necessary for Israeli’s to kill the civilians if they want to kill Hamas.  It is certainly not offered by Netanyahu. He is the exact opposite of the statesman. He is always willing to turn to the extremists, even if it means the death of Israel. Rawls is much wiser than Netanyahu. He suggests this:

 

Statesmen need not be selfless and may have their own interests when they hold office, yet they must be selfless in their judgments and assessments of society’s interests and not be swayed, especially in war and crisis, by passions of revenge and retaliation against the enemy.

The statesperson is the person who avoids doing those things that make it more difficult to achieve peace. For example, Netanyahu has made peace much more difficult, if not impossible by sprinkling the occupied territories with extremist settlers in the occupied West Bank. They are deliberately trying to create what they call “facts on the ground” which will make it harder for Israel to make peace. Apparently, there are now 750,000 of these settlers and they can vote. And Netanyahu knows it. They make peace virtually impossible. Netanyahu was warned over and over against this but he persisted in his folly. Now Israel is paying a big price for that mistake.

As Rawls said,

 

“… the proclamations of a nation should make clear (the statesman must see to this) that the enemy people are to be granted an autonomous regime of their own and a decent and full life once peace is securely reestablished.Whatever they may be told by their leaders, whatever reprisals they may reasonably fear, they are not to be held as slaves or serfs after surrender, or denied in due course their full liberties; and they may well achieve freedoms they did not enjoy before, as the Germans and the Japanese eventually did. The statesman knows, if others do not, that all descriptions of the enemy people (not their rulers) inconsistent with this are impulsive and false.”

 

 

The statesperson must not be like Hitler or Netanyahu. As Rawls described Hitler he could just as well have been talking about Netanyahu:

” Yet characteristic of Hitler was that he accepted no possibility at all of a political relationship with his enemies. They were always to be cowed by terror and brutality, and ruled by force. From the beginning the campaign against Russia, for example, was a war of destruction against Slavic peoples, with the original inhabitants remaining, if at all, only as serfs. When Goebbels and others protested that the war could not be won that way, Hitler refused to listen.”

 

The United States generally, follows the rules of war. But Rawls says they failed in the case of Hiroshima:

 

“The principles of the conduct of war were always applicable to it. Indeed, in the case of Hiroshima many involved in higher reaches of the government recognized the questionable character of the bombing and that limits were being crossed. Yet during the discussions among allied leaders in June and July 1945, the weight of the practical means-end reasoning carried the day. Under the continuing pressure of war, such moral doubts as there were failed to gain an express and articulated view. As the war progressed, the heavy fire-bombing of civilians in the capitals of Berlin and Tokyo and elsewhere was increasingly accepted on the allied side. Although after the outbreak of war Roosevelt had urged both sides not to commit the inhuman barbarism of bombing civilians, by 1945 allied leaders came to assume that Roosevelt would have used the bomb on Hiroshima. The bombing grew out of what had happened before.”

The Statesperson

violence, War Between Israel and Hamas

 

 

John Rawls said that in times of war a country needs a stateman. Now of course, we would add, or stateswoman. In fact, women might very well be better at this than men. Men have a long and spotty record of tawdry statesmanship.

Who is the statesman?

Rawls gives an interesting analysis of who the statesman is.

“There is no office of statesman, as there is of president, or chancellor, or prime minister. The statesman is an ideal, like the ideal of the truthful or virtuous individual. Statesmen are presidents or prime ministers who become statesmen through their exemplary performance and leadership in their office in difficult and trying times and manifest strength, wisdom, and courage. They guide their people through turbulent and dangerous periods for which they are esteemed always, as one of their great statesmen.”

 

And bluster, and belligerence, and bellicosity are not strength.  Sometimes they manage to hide the weakness. In fact, they are deep manifestations of weakness. Netanyahu is not strong. He sounds tough but is really weak.

 

As Isaac Asimov said, “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” This has been demonstrated over and over again in the Middle East. Israelis keep repeating how Palestinians have never lost an opportunity to lose an opportunity. I agree. But this is just as true of Israel. The Middle East cries out in its agony for a strong leader like Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King. Someone who knows the futility of bloodshed and how violence guarantees failure. It is the extremists who are weak. The strong man (or woman of course) is the one who pursues the avoidance of violence because the violence will inevitably destroy the goal.

 

John Rawls offers an alternative. That alternative is to be a statesman (or, of course, a stateswoman. What makes the statesman different, you ask. Rawls puts it this way: “”The ideal of the statesman is suggested by the saying: the politician looks to the next election, the statesman to the next generation.”

 

Netanyahu is not a statesman. The Palestinians don’t seem to have one either. And that’s a pity.

Does the End Justify the Means?

Morality, Political Violence, War Between Israel and Hamas

 

John Rawls in his analysis of the bombing of Japanese cities by America at the end of the Second World War, turned to another important philosophical principle: the ends must justify the means and if they don’t the means must be discarded in favour of those that do. This was the argument made by another great philosopher this time from Canada and in fact from my university—Arthur Schafer. I hope to go into greater detail on this point in a future post on this issue but will just mention how Rawls deals with it. This is what he said:

 

“Finally, we note the place of practical means-end reasoning in judging the appropriateness of an action or policy for achieving the aim of war or for not causing more harm than good. This mode of thought—whether carried on by (classical) utilitarian reasoning, or by cost-benefit analysis, or by weighing national interests, or in other ways—must always be framed within and strictly limited by the preceding principles. The norms of the conduct of war set up certain lines that bound just action. War plans and strategies, and the conduct of battles, must lie within their limits (The only exception, I repeat, is in times of extreme crisis.”

 

In other words, war without genuine limits is never acceptable. Rawls, like Camus, and unlike Lindsey Graham and unlike Hamas, acknowledges there are limits to what one can do in a just war or it ceases to be just. Limits are not just important. Limits are essential to the just war. A war without limits, which so many wars in recent years have become, is not a just war.

Rawls insists that the defensive war must not cause more harm than good. In his view it really is that simple. He might be right.

I heard Antonio Guterres, U.N. Secretary-General interviewed by Fareed Zakaria and he pointed out that every year for 7 years he has published a report about children killed in wars. He has complained about countries like Syria, Russia, Israel and the Taliban in the past. None of them were happy with his reports. Until now he said, the most children that were ever killed by one country in such conflicts was 600 in a year. He also said that he did not rely on the numbers of deaths in Gaza presented by Hamas as they were not reliable, but he said,  “it is clear that the number of children killed in a few weeks in Gaza is in the thousands.”

Earlier he also said, Gaza had been turned into a graveyard for children.

Does the end justify that means? Thousands of children dead and of course, many more adult civilians, many of them women and old people?

I have a hard time seeing that as doing less harm than good.

 

Live the Peace you want

Democracy, Extremism, Political Violence, War Between Israel and Hamas

 

The American philosopher John Rawls in his article on the dropping of the Atomic bomb by the US on Japan, made another point: 

“A decent democratic society must respect the human rights of the members of the other side, both civilians and soldiers, for two reasons. One is because they simply have these rights by the law of peoples. The other reason is to teach enemy soldiers and civilians the content of those rights by the example of how they hold in their own case…. This means, as I understand it here, that they can never be attacked directly except in times of extreme crisis…”

 

This is an interesting idea. Rawls requires the democratic society to do more than go to battle against the aggressor. It must actually teach the non-democratic aggressor what it means to be a democracy. And it must teach by example; not words! The democracy does that, because when the war is over it wants to have one more democratic partner and one less enemy!

Rawls makes another very important argument, very closely aligned to the last one. This is what he said: “just peoples by their actions and proclamations are to foreshadow during war the kind of peace they aim for and the kind of relations they seek between nations”

I put it this way: Live the peace you want. Show the peace by your actions because, as we all know, actions speak louder than words.

 As Rawls says, just peoples know in their hearts, that  “present enemies must be seen as associates in a shared and just future peace.” Just leaders—statesmen as he calls them,  want to do more than avoiding losing the war. They also want to make sure they don’t lose the peace either!

Even in the midst of war, the democratic state must have its eye on the prize—i.e. the peace that is to follow. It wants to create a partner for the peace; not an enemy for eternity Again, I would submit that both Israel and Hamas are falling down here. Hamas is not democratic so this does not apply. Moreover, its actions have been so horrendous that it is very difficult to conceive of them as a future partner in anything. Israel though is not trying to create the just peace that can make a partner. Israel has voted for extremists at least since Ehud Barak ceased to be Prime Minister. He was followed by Ariel Sharon, and very briefly by Ehud Olmert, another extremist,  and then Benjamin Netanyahu a consistent extremist, and as a result turned from peace to war and in the process it ruined its soul! Israel turned itself into a monster. I know such a statement will hurt my Jewish friends, but I believe it is true. Israel has been provoked by extreme violence, but it has turned itself into Hamas light. I will have more to say on this in subsequent posts. Both sides are creating enemies for eternity. Both sides must deep six their extremist leaders who are leading them into the wilderness.