A claim that’s being heard over and over, made by Israeli spokespersons as well as by leaders of the free world, is that Israel has the right to defend itself. Of course, this isn’t true. Israel has an obligation to defend itself, or rather, its citizens and their sovereignty, just like any other country. It’s one of the most basic functions any political entity must fulfill.
The question here is, then, what may be considered an act of self defense. I’ll resist the temptation of comparing Israel to the class thug letting one of the weaklings have it with growing enthusiasm while yelling that this is all in self defense, although that picture only begins to scratch the surface of how deeply wrong Israel’s use of the term is. Instead, I will argue something entirely different: I will argue that if, as a result of the actions labeled as self defense, a society goes through a deep change, this isn’t self defense at all – in fact, it is self destruction. If a culture shakes off its values, obviously something essential to the culture – its determination, its very “self” – is changing. In other words, if a society loses that which is essential to it, changes its “self”, this isn’t self defense.
Arguably, the story which pictures best Israeli society’s self destruction under the cover of self defense is the story of Dr. Az A-Din Abu El-Eish1 and Mrs. Levana Shtern. Dr. Abu El-Eish broke into every Israeli living room during Operation Cast Lead, breaking the veil of ignorance the IDF, supported by Israeli public opinion, cast over its actions in the Gaza Strip. Dr. Abu El-Eish, a resident of the Gaza Strip, is a Gynecologist who worked at the Israeli hospitals Sheba, located in the outskirts of Tel Aviv, and Soroka, located in Be’er Sheva. For years he’s been making the journey from Gaza to the Israeli hospitals, through military checkpoints, and back. For years he has been helping Jewish and non-Jewish mothers before, during and after child birth. During his years of work in Israel, he made some Israeli friends, among them the Israeli reporter Shlomi Eldar, as well as several other journalists. And one day during the war in the Gaza Strip he phoned his friend Shlomi Eldar who was in the studio of Israeli channel 10 news. You don’t need to speak Hebrew to understand what’s being said here, but there are subtitles anyway:
This conversation took place minutes after Dr. Abu El-Eish’s house in Gaza was fired at by IDF tanks. The shelling killed three of his daughters. The silence from Gaza was broken, on prime time. Israelis could not stand it.
The day after this incident Dr. Abu El-Eish, who was rushed to Sheba hospital, talked to Shlomi Eldar. He spoke angrily. The IDF claimed that gunfire was spotted from his house, and that is why it’s been shelled. Abu El-Eish was furious – it wasn’t the shelling that insulted him, it was this claim. He was deeply offended that they claimed he held firearms, or allowed firing at soldiers from his house. At his wounded daughter’s bedside he said that if the shelling turned out to be a mistake, he will hold no grudge.
We all make mistakes. And I hope this would be the last mistake… I wanted to set an example of coexistence and relations
(By the way, when the IDF announced its interrogation results, and indeed admitted the shelling to be a mistake, Dr. Abu El-Eish stood up to his word).
His story caught the eyes of some foreign reporters, and they organized an ad-hoc press conference. This is what happened there:
Levana Shtern, a mother of two IDF soldiers, interrupted Dr. Abu El-Eish’s message of peace to the world. She accused him of holding firearms in his house. She told him – and these were her exact words – that he should be ashamed of himself. One of her peers can be seen yelling out an outrageous truism: “If there hadn’t been fire coming from the house, they would not have hit it“, thus redefining the term “Terrorist”, defining as such anyone who was fired at by the IDF. Such blind belief in the IDF is, it should be said, quite common among Israelis, and was even more during the days of the war. Most Israelis accept as true defense minister Ehud Barak’s claim that the IDF is “The most moral army in the world“.
I watched that footage over and over again. Shtern looks like any other person I can meet at the supermarket, like any other Israeli mother. She speaks my language, she has my cultural background, her signature on the Israeli social contract is right next to mine. I watched her not only refusing to listen to the other side, but actively trying to silence it. From behind Shtern, the mob was yelling out their comments: “Piece of shit“, they yelled at him, “Terrorist“. Abu El-Eish was right: They don’t want to know the truth. And they refuse to let anyone else know it, either.
To me, this was a wake up call. I never accepted that Israel’s obligation to defend its citizens included the right to disproportionally attack the other, weaker, side. I held that while Israel, that’s been under rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip for 8 years, had every right to retort in order to bring these attacks to a halt, a full out military strike is a last resort, and even as such it should be limited in time and magnitude, it has to be proportionate. But to see my people so overwhelmingly sure that killing three little girls is a necessary defensive act or a part of one, so bluntly indifferent to the pain of someone from the other side, so unwilling to listen to anything that’s not their own opinion that they’re willing to forcefully prevent it from being heard – that cast a huge cloud over Israeli society as a whole. This isn’t self defense. This is removing any cultural limits and any shred of humanity, and setting a brutal beast free. This is a societal self destruction.
[...]
Operation Cast Lead was just the turning point, but this position became increasingly popular in Israeli discorse during the time since. , it’s easy to see this in the wonderfully representative text that Yossi Gurvitz brought here. Yossi is quoting Israeli radio broadcasters call for violence against Shovrim Shtika (Breaking the Silence) activists, who published a report with testimonies of soldiers from the Gaza war. This serves as another example of this claim. Linor and Arielie don’t really want Hezky to come and beat up Shovrim Shtika activists. They would settle for a Shtern that will never let them speak, lest they know what was done on their behalf. It’s sheer and utter irony when Linor says:
You know, even if you do have a just cause, you’re thinking we’re a brutal, insufferable occupier[...] Prove it! Prove it! Because if such acts do happen, I want to know about them, me, as a citizen whose national identity is unconflicted, I want to know. If people are committing acts of cruelty and abuse, I want to know, me, the representative of the fascist Zionist establishment and an ordinary citizen
No, she doesn’t want to know. Had she really wanted to know, she would have seen all the different reports coming from Gaza as reason enough to demand that the government interrogated this thoroughly. Not only does she not want to know – she’s calling out to perform acts of violence against people who bring it up to her attention. Meaning, Linor is right when she says she’s “An ordinary citizen” in Israel: She doesn’t want to know and she wants everyone else to remain in the darkness of blessed ignorance as well. And she admits it:
The point is such evidence should be treated as a very, very large and delicate national project, and understand we’re playing with fire, and there’s the world press, and there’s the internet, and this is reported[...]Where do they get the fundings [sic] for the brochures from? It’s just that I’d like to know. What… these are people whose natural crowd lives abroad
There are two wonderful claims in this quote. The first is that any such interrogation has to be made a “National project”, and should be kept a secret, lest The World2 finds out. Meaning, a radio broadcaster thinks that something of the magnitude of war crimes becoming public knowledge through the media should be avoided. Meaning, she doesn’t want to know. The second claim is an accurate observation: You’d expect the natural crowd of Shovrim Shtika to be Israelis like Linor herself, people who “Want to know”. But Linor knows well that Israelis, herself included, do not want to know. Only people who live abroad have any interest in crimes committed by the IDF. Israelis would much rather living in denial, and sending off their Hezky or Shtern whenever someone dares breaking their precious ignorance, which allows them to be a constantly right, morally superior occupier.
[...]
Israel was established as a democracy. However, current discourse more and more views the freedom of speech as a limited privilege and not as a basic freedom. More and more opinions and actions are trigger enough to incite, or perform, an act of violence. An increasing amount of voices is silenced, violently if needed. Israel needs to be reminded that its duty to defend its citizens includes the duty to defend those of them who hold non mainstream views. It needs to start defending itself in the broader sense, or it will transform into something entirely different. It is Israel’s duty. Sadly, just one of many that it doesn’t perform well.
[...]
Is what you see of the world through this window so beautiful, then, that you have lost all desire to look through any other – and even try to prevent others from doing so?3
You begin by saying that Israel has a right, or obligation, to defend itself, just like any other country. But is it really right to assume that any country has a right to defend itself? I believe that defending oneself is a right reserved only to democratic countries. Otherwise any country would be able to justify its military actions with this excuse, much like Israel does.
So even before we look at the morality of Israel’s military actions, the question is really whether the country has a legitimacy to any military action whatsoever, regardless of what these actions are.
@Menil:
“You begin by saying that Israel has a right, or obligation, to defend itself, just like any other country. But is it really right to assume that any country has a right to defend itself? I believe that defending oneself is a right reserved only to democratic countries” – i wonder, how is that different than saying that a person can only defend him or herself if they are good people, or if they subscribe to the same values that we hold dear? Isn’t the right to life of any person greater than any ideology you may or may not believe in? Or are you suggesting that the oppressed citizens of a fascist dictatorship don’t deserve to be safe at least from threats from the outside?
“Otherwise any country would be able to justify its military actions with this excuse, much like Israel does.” – That’s an inherent problem with the concept of self defense, and one that has nothing to do with whether or not a country is a democracy. A democratic country can utilize it’s right to self defense to justify military offenses. In fact, the world biggest democracy did just that. That’s why it needs to be discussed what is considered self defense and what isn’t, and I’ve been trying to offer some kind of partial mechanism here in the post.
I wonder further how would you define democracy for the purposes of your idea, or more to the point, what mechanism you’d offer to define a democracy to decide which country has the right to self defense. I understand from between your lines you don’t think Israel is a democracy. You’re (Still) wrong, but I can live with that. I gave the example of the US. If you’re going to say that the US isn’t a democracy either, we’re slowly deteriorating to a “No True Scot” fallacy, aren’t we?
Thirdly, I wonder what ensures that a democracy, however you define it, won’t use it’s right to defend itself as an excuse for just a blunt military attack. Watch out for the circular argument in saying that a country that does that isn’t a democracy.
Let me begin by saying that I do see the US as a democracy, and as such has a right to defend itself. This of course does not justify any means it uses to achieve that. I agree with you that it needs to be discussed what is considered self defence and what isn’t, so for that the rest of your post is relevant.
So how would I define a democracy? It’s more as a set of processes that a country is in than a static status for a country. There’s no “ultimate state of democracy”. So when deciding whether a country is democratic or not we need to analyse the processes which may introduce more democratic values in the country’s society or reduce them. Among these “democratic values” are equal rights for all citizens, obviously without any discrimination based on race, gender and so on.
From here we see why the US had a right to defend itself for example during World War 2, when even though it didn’t have equal rights for all its citizens, it was in a long, ongoing process to achieve them (abolitionism, progressivism, women’s suffrage…), while its rivals were in an opposite process, and therefore couldn’t have used the excuse of having a right to defend themselves.
So to decide whether Israel is a democracy we need to see in what direction Israel is going. It seems to me that it is currently in a process of an ultra-Zionist and ultra-religious reactionism, especially with the current government policies. It currently doesn’t show any signs of returning to the path toward democracy. But this may change even in the near future.
As for your first question about the innocent citizens of a fascist dictatorship, the citizens in both countries have a right to be safe from their own regime. Since the outside threat is in this case a non-democratic country too, these outside threats can basically be attributed in each country to the actions of their own regime. What should be done is to not interfere and impose sanctions on both countries to pressure them toward democratic reforms. Take the Iran-Iraq war as an example. No side had a right to defend itself. The citizens, however, had a right to be safe from their own regime and their actions. But supporting the right of any side in that war to defend itself would have just made things worse for both sides. But if no 3rd party would had helped either side, it would have been more likely that things would end better.
@Menil: Whow, you’re sticking your foot in your mouth so much. You’re presenting views that are so easily falsifiable. Here’s just one example, and not even the worst: suppose that I was the president of some country with an ethnic minority. Suppose I had all members of the minority put in concentration camps and their children taken away from them. That would make my country a brutal dictatorship. Now suppose that I gradually relax my grip, put messages on TV that say how nice the minority people are are and that we should let them work for us again (and even get paid for it) and I let their kids have candy and raise the food portions. And I gradually make things better. Would this make my country a democracy? Also, according to your criteria, France is a dictatorship. The rest of your ad-hoc ethics make roughly as much sense.
Why is it so hard for you to recognize the right of people for self-defense?
@Menil: I still don’t see it. Firstly, I don’t understand – and you did not explain – why the right to self defense (Or in the case of a country, the obligation to defend its citizens) depends on its regime? This seems to be an utter Red Herring: I see no way the two are related. Let’s suppose a country is being ruled by a benevolent dictator. He allows his people all the freedom people in a western democracy enjoy, and the country thrives. The people are content, and the country’s doing well. They don’t need protection from their regime: their regime does not prosecute them, and they’re happy with it. The neighbouring country is a democracy. All citizens are equal, all people are voting, any possible criteria is met. But the economy is stagnant and the people vote for a government – en elected, democratic government – which decides to attack the neighbouring country. Now, we have a weird thing going on: You’re saying that the attacked country has no right to defend itself against such an attack. Meaning, you’d have our enlightened dictatorship sit idly by while its people are being killed and their resources are being forcefully taken away, simply because they don’t subscribe to YOUR idea of a perfect regime? How is that just, in your view?
Furthermore, I’m missing an explanation here: Your first claim was “I believe that defending oneself is a right reserved only to democratic countries. Otherwise any country would be able to justify its military actions with this excuse” – meaning, the reason you gave was that a non democratic country would wrongly utilize this right. I gave you an example, and you seemed to agree, of the US and its loose definition of self defense, as is the case with Iraq, for instance. We both agree that a democratic country is just as capable of misusing this right. What, then, makes your arbitrary claim that a country can only defend itself if it’s a democracy valid? What is your reasoning?
Thirdly, this one’s for Dubi, but I’ll take it anyway: Your criteria of a democracy requires the ability to forecast what processes would amount for, how would they end. That is an almost impossible task. Is Italy a democracy? How about South Africa these days? How about the UK, with the processes happening there, are they a democracy?
On top of that, you base your criteria on a subjective mechanism to determine the way processes are heading. Your judgment would be different than mine, for example, and as such your criteria cannot be good mechanism. Back to the sketching board.
@elad-vav: Now now, “gradually” relaxing the grip isn’t enough, it has to be proven that it is a complete process. If it is one then the country is still not a democracy but it is in the process of becoming one. But you didn’t say that the country is under attack so the question of whether it has a right to defend itself isn’t relevant. And I don’t see why France would be a dictatorship according to my criteria.
@Rod Avissar: What I believe is that the Western World (i.e. democratic countries, without going into the question of what that means and which countries are such) should not support the right of non-democratic countries to defend themselves and use it as a means of pressuring them toward democratic reforms. It’s a basic carrot and stick policy.
As for this “benevolent dictatorship”, if all its citizens enjoy all freedoms and don’t need protection from their regime, then that’s enough to be under the status of “democracy” for the question of whether or not the country has a right to defend itself.
I’m not saying that predicting these processes is possible, and indeed deciding whether a country is a democracy according to these criteria (and probably any criteria) is subjective. But nontheless in the case of Israel, according to my opinion it is in a process of reducing the basic human and civil rights of its citizens. Thus for the case of operations against attacks such as Qassam rockets and such, the US should tell Israel that it will not support any military action and impose sanctions against it if Israel does not begin performing some reforms toward eliminating discrimation and introducing equality. The same should be directed at the Palestinian side, against there are already many sanctions. Like I said, carrot and stick…
@Menil: Rod said I’d be interested, but I don’t really see why. Can you point to anyone on Earth that shares your definition of democracy in a non-ad-hoc manner (that is, somebody who didn’t use such a definition strictly for the purpose of claiming that a country which obviously is a democracy actually isn’t)?
The defense rests.
@Menil: Wow, hold your horses, you’re doing something incredibly wrong.
A. “Now now, “gradually” relaxing the grip isn’t enough, it has to be proven that it is a complete process. If it is one then the country is still not a democracy but it is in the process of becoming one”
Compare with:
“So how would I define a democracy? It’s more as a set of processes that a country is in than a static status for a country. There’s no “ultimate state of democracy”. So when deciding whether a country is democratic or not we need to analyse the processes which may introduce more democratic values in the country’s society or reduce them”.
Now, slowly, because I’m slow, explain to me which one of the two contradicting views you hold. The first quote clearly states that you believe that if a country that isn’t democratic is going through processes of democratization (BTW, these are not democratization processes. You’re missing out on a huge chunk of what democracy is, I’ll get to that later) than it should be considered a democracy. The second one recognizes there are certain characteristics of a democratic country, and while being in the process of shifting towards these values is admirable, it still does not make a country a “democracy”. In other words, all of a sudden it is not the processes which a political entity undergoes that make it a democracy, but we’re now introduced to a certain threshold. If there is such a threshold, surely it applies also for a democracy that’s headed in “non democratic” directions, which obligates me to ask if you sincerely believe Israel has crossed this threshold.
B. “But you didn’t say that the country is under attack so the question of whether it has a right to defend itself isn’t relevant” – come now, don’t you think that’s a bit evasive?
C. “What I believe is that the Western World (i.e. democratic countries, without going into the question of what that means and which countries are such) should not support the right of non-democratic countries to defend themselves and use it as a means of pressuring them toward democratic reforms. It’s a basic carrot and stick policy.” – 3 things:
1. Yeah, I got that the first time around. The question is not what do YOU believe, the question is HOW you substantiate it. Do you have valid arguments to support your claim?
2. Let me rephrase you, and if I’m wrong, please correct me: What I believe is that democratic countries, a term I will not (cannot?) define shouldn’t support the right of other, non-democratic countries – again, a term that’s debatable – to defend themselves. In other words, some countries are supposed to negate the right of some other countries to defend themselves, and I cannot or will not give a criteria as to which country is which.
Now, you do realize no one can take such a claim seriously, right?
3. So you’re saying it is allowed and just for some countries to force other countries to have the same regime that they believe in through negating some basic rights of this country and its citizens, such as the right to bloody well exist? Is that you’re idea of justice? Would you root for a law that prevents convicts from defending themselves against attacks by law-keeping citizens?
D. “As for this “benevolent dictatorship”, if all its citizens enjoy all freedoms and don’t need protection from their regime, then that’s enough to be under the status of “democracy” for the question of whether or not the country has a right to defend itself.” – Fantastic. So a country which negates its citizens basic right to be sovereign and to have control of their future, and never holds any type of elections, free or not, is a democracy – that’s, by the way, what you’ve been missing – democracy means that the citizens are the sovereign entity; but still hold that Israel isn’t. That’s called double standards. We now encounter a third definition of a democracy: A state of which citizens do not require protection from their government. I’d say that’s a pretty static definition.
E. “I’m not saying that predicting these processes is possible, and indeed deciding whether a country is a democracy according to these criteria (and probably any criteria) is subjective” – 2 things:
1. If both difficulties exist, and it is both impossible to predict the outcome of processes and it is done subjectively, we still have a serious problem: You’re telling me there’s no way of knowing which country answers to the definition you claim is a test for a very basic right. Then you’re basically saying: There’s a way to distinguish who has that right and who hasn’t, but I can’t define it. I just know Israel doesn’t. That’s not a very good argument.
2. Any criteria? How about “Holds a free and fair elections in set periods of time, “Has an impartial justice system” and so on? These are pretty objective – sure as hell more objective than “undergoing some processes that may result in greater private freedom”.
F. “But nontheless in the case of Israel, according to my opinion it is in a process of reducing the basic human and civil rights of its citizens. Thus for the case of operations against attacks such as Qassam rockets and such, the US should tell Israel that it will not support any military action and impose sanctions against it if Israel does not begin performing some reforms toward eliminating discrimation and introducing equality. The same should be directed at the Palestinian side, against there are already many sanctions. Like I said, carrot and stick…” – So you devised a system that only works for denying the right to self defense from Israel – you don’t know how it’s all defined, but you’re sure Israel is definitely out. Moreover, you are suggesting the US would jeopardize the safety of Israeli citizens and infringe on their right to self defense and to be protected by their elected government as a means to pressure said government. Using the lives of citizens to pressure leadership is terror, you know.
So, to summarize: The dictionary definition of a democracy is a state that is governed by its citizens. Ancient Athens, for instance, was a democracy, and in it suffrage was only granted to male citizens- i.e. not slaves. It was still a democracy since it still allowed for free choice to any member of its citizen body. It wasn’t a benevolent democracy, but it employed the form of government in which all citizens are the rulers, thus it was a democracy.
In recent years, there has been a confusion as to the meaning of this word. The United States has been investing diplomatic and military efforts in a campaign to bring democracy to other parts of the world. The problem is that they also invented the term “Democratic Values” which are what they were really seeking to advance in those other countries. They don’t care about the form of governance in other countries, but they believe that their form of governance, the one of an elected government namely democracy, will bring about the values they believe in – freedom from prosecution and all the other good things Americans believe any person is entitled to.
The flaws in this belief, that a form of governance will bring the exact same ultimate results for all peoples, are many, but that’s not my point. My point is that Menil thinks of ‘democracy’ as shorthand for ‘democratic values’ which is another shorthand for ‘everything I believe in’. Rod, however, sees democracy as a form of government.
If Rod reads every time Menil says ‘democratic’ as ‘benevolent’, while Menil reads Rod’s ‘democratic’ as ‘holding free elections’, this discussion might work better.
As my first phrase might suggest, I’m on Rod’s (and the dictionaries’) side, but I don’t think Menil is erring out of stupidity, but out of confusion of terms.
I think @Maital Rozenboim got it right. It’s these “democratic values”. You might say I meant these are liberal, progressive values that have to do with human rights. Not “everything I believe in”. But it happens to be everything I believe in in the critical subject of human and civil rights, which I see as more important than any other property a country has.
@Rod Avissar: A lot of your arguments have to do with the difference between our definitions of terms. To make things short, I said “It’s more as a set of processes that a country is in than a static status for a country”. It’s more. Not “It’s only a set of processes…”, hence it’s not necessarily a contradiction. In addition:
C. 1. Carrot and stick policies have had success in the past. Take for example pressuring Israel into participating in the Madrid conference.
2. I can give criteria and tell you which is which. I already started doing that.
3. I’m merely supporting using it as a means of pressure.
E. 1. A lot of policies countries enact are based on predictions of processes in other countries and such.
2. It’s subjective but I agree with you on those two.
F. I’m denying the right of self defence from both sides. The US has arms embargos against some countries. That’s in effect trying to deny of them the right to defend themselves as a means of pressure. Is this US policy “terrorism”?
@Menil:
C.1. The Madrid Conference had zero success, exactly because all sides have been forced into it against their will.
2. The problem is that your criteria are self contradictory, as @Rod Avissar pointed out.
3. again: would you think a law allowing law abiding citizens to attack convicts as long as they didn’t kill them?Because that’s what you’re supporting.
E.1. Not material to the argument. If your basic criteria are vague, no firm decision can result from them.
2. a few more please. We’re trying to get a good definition, after all. Also, a definite minimum of criteria the country has to stand to pass said threshold would be nice.
F. Not same thing at all- what the US is saying is basically “we don’t give these nations weapons because we don’t trust them/they’re enemy nations”. It doesn’t claim “if somebody attacks them they should roll over and play dead”.
@Menil:
“But it happens to be everything I believe in in the critical subject of human and civil rights, which I see as more important than any other property a country has.” – And yet, you think elections isn’t one of these values. Interesting. So democratic values include no democracy in them.
By the way, I understood completely what you meant. I just happen to think you’re dead wrong twice: Once, in defining only western liberal democracies as democracies, because you think that people’s sovereignty is only good enough if these people happen to hold your values; that’s both anti-democratic and anti-liberal; the second time is that you think a nation’s right to defend itself should be up to its values or regime, or in other words, you accept only one way of life as worthy of defense – your way of life – and that’s just as fundamentalist as any radical Muslim perception.
“A lot of your arguments have to do with the difference between our definitions of terms. To make things short, I said “It’s more as a set of processes that a country is in than a static status for a country”. It’s more. Not “It’s only a set of processes…”, hence it’s not necessarily a contradiction” – So the set of processes is MORE important than the actual state, which still brings about a contradiction in your response to Elad. On we go.
C. 1. Yeah, that worked super. Thanks for the peace and all. By the way, “it works” isn’t an argument. I asked you how do you morally connect the two together, and you gave me no valid argument for that. Not one. Just a “carrot and stick works”. Fine, killing all Palestinians will surely work in putting an end to Palestinian terrorism. So here’s my statement: Every nation that has a terrorist group should be eliminated completely. Why? It works. See my point?
Since you did not prove that a non-democracy is more likely to utilize the right to self defense wrongly than a democracy, you need to give a reason that a non-democracy isn’t allowed that right. The fact that they run their matters differently than what you think is right has nothing to do with it, unless you proved otherwise.
2. No, what you gave me groundless, subjective, impossible criteria. I’m still looking for something I can use without having to ask Menil “Is this a democracy? Can that country defend itself?”
3. No, you’re supporting jeopardizing civilians to pressure their governments. This is not carrot and stick, it’s passive terrorism.
D. Oh, why would you skip this part? Please tell me it’s not because there’s a basic flaw in your theory you just cannot fix.
E. 1. None of those policies negate basic rights. One last time: Do you have a mechanism that works, which does not involve asking you, to determine which countries have the right to defend themselves? I want to map all the countries in the world into these two groups. What is the test that I use? Give me a test that would work with any tester, a mechanism that works regardless of who’s operating it, or accept that you have no way of justly enforcing your carrot and stick policy without it being misused by nations with an interest who make use of your wishy-washy definition.
2. How is it subjective? That’s the very dictionary definition.
F. 1. Arms embargo are in place against countries that risk other countries. It’s aiding the self defense of these other countries. They’re not done to lead to regime change – the US raids countries for that – but to secure other countries. Thus, not terror. Moving on:
2. Denying that a state has the right to defend itself means either actively – by preventing it from doing so – or passively – by condemning it for doing so – hold that it is not allowed for this country to use any means its got for the defense of its people. Acknowledging the right to self defense doesn’t mean sending out weapons to aid, and denying it does not mean stopping the weapon supply. It means holding that it is wrong for said country to use the weapons they already have to defend themselves. Example not valid. Moving on:
3. If the citizens of a nation are in danger, and another country tries actively or passively to prevent their country from getting them out of danger, it is making use of civilian lives to pressure the government. That’s the basic definition of terrorism, even if you use such nice euphemisms.
@Menil: It still seems to me like the argument over the “right to self defense” is a moot point.
Self defense against aggression, in my opinion, is universal.
If I understand correctly, then by your arguments, a hypothetical “democratic values” country would have some sort of moral right, or even OBLIGATION, to invade, assault, dissolve the sovereignty of another country that it perceives does not subscribe to those values, say, a supposedly malevolant dictatorship.
On the one hand, that could be equated to the state getting involved in a family where the children are mistreated.
But the comparison ends there. Where one country uses military force on another sovereign country, the state gets involved not by force, aggression and assault, but by treatment, social and psychological, with incarceration preferably being a last resort, but still — it’s applied toward its citizens, over whom it has sovereignty.
Two states colliding is more like my neighbour coming into my house and taking my kids because said neighbour doesn’t like the way I’m raising them.
There are other ways of getting those “democratic values” across. The denial of the right to self defense is a dangerous act.
That said, the term “self defense” can be perverted, stretched out of shape ’till it’s completely unrecognisable, as Rod so plainly illustrated in the post.
OK, I see I’m being attacked on many fronts here, and many of your replies are long… I’ll try to keep it short though because I don’t have time to address each and every claim against my ideas,. But let me sum things up. There are two problems you all see with my ideas.
First, I define democracy differently. It’s not the dictionary definition. Maybe I should use another term then. In addition, you claim that my definition is contradictory and subjective. Well, the basic criterion I see is that a country must treat all its citizens equally and not discriminate. I mentioned it before. Without this I don’t define a country as “democratic”. This is why I wouldn’t see Israel as a “democracy” at the moment, and according to this we could judge other countries.
Secondly, you don’t believe that a country’s right to defend itself depends on its regime or values. I believe otherwise. I should emphasize, though, that this has to do only with the right to self-defence. This does not give a country that sees itself as morally superior to attack these “non-democratic” countries. Merely not assist their regimes. Also, this situation cannot be compared to criminals or to your neighbours, since these are countries we’re dealing with, and they have armies, while citizens don’t, and citizens have courts to try them or defend them, while with countries the story is a completely different one.
Rod,
If you see Levana Shtern or Irit Linor as the representatives of “the great Israeli Democracy”, you are not very familiar with Israel – As there is freedom of speech, there are few idiots who speak without representing anyone but themselves. To say that they represent the Mainstream Israeli or that they represent the Israeli Democracy is like saying that Neturei Karta or Azmi Bshara represent the mainstream Israeli Left Wing. Pure Demagogy if not other things.
@yonatan:
I find it quite disconcerting that people dismiss opinions that are expressed publicly, over mainstream airwaves (Irit Linor) and under media coverage (Stern) as “few idiots who speak without representing anyone but themselves”.
Irit Linor is backed by her public image, media exposure and cultural contribution. She is far from representing herself. People buy her books, watch her tv shows, and tune in to her radio program all the time, because she says things they either agree with politically, or choose to embrace culturally.
Stern, on the other hand, is not only backed by her supporters at the press conference, she is also given a media platform to express her views — that same press conference — and her cries of disdain strike so close to our hearts because they are all-too familiar from our streets, our friends, our elections.
Not too familiar with Israel, (I’ve been told that I’m “delusional” – חי בסרט) is an unfair and offensive argument. The idea that YOU are more fully versed in the popular opinion than anyone else is pretentious, as well as naive. These and similar opinions are loudly expressed at right-wing ralleys, across the street from anti-war demonstrations, at football matches, on the streets of Tel Aviv, and in our universities – the supposed home of free thinking, liberal idealism and co-existence.
@yonatan: Maybe I’m not that familiar with the country I live in. Perhaps. Maybe Galei Tzahal, the radio station that gave Linor the microphone as a representative of the secular Zionist left wing are also not so familiar with Israel. It could be that Arielie and Linor represent no one but themselves, and it is an ongoing mistake the station – one of two national radio broadcasting authorities in Israel – is making to present them as such.
It could also be that Shtern represents no one but herself, and it would be a mistake to extrapolate from her behaviour to this of the average Israeli. Maybe it’s all sheer rhetorics – or possibly worse (And just what do you mean by that?).
It could also be that when you read the comments to the story of Abu El-Eish in every Israeli internet news site you read a lot of Shtern-like opinions. This is easy to check if you happen to read Hebrew, if you don’t, you’ll have to take my word for it. It could also be that the Israeli media, published as front page breaking news each and every one of the IDF spokesperson’s spins regarding the incident – Dr. Abu El-Eish was accused of hosting weapons, having snipers in the appartment, having people who helped tageting IDF soliders on the roof, hiding Hamas warriors and, to top it off, at a certain stage the IDF claimes the shelling was done by Hamas – but it couldn’t be bothered to publish the outcome of the IDF investigation, which found the shelling to be a mistake. Unlike your statement, which relies solely on your opinion of what Israeli discourse looks like, these two declarations are based on easy to check facts.
It could also be that Linor herself claims to represent a public, and that the common Israeli media and politician and public figures reaction to the report was not at all different. Shovrim Shtika are being treated as backstabbing traitors in the Israeli media since the report came out. Again, something a simple search in Ynet or even Haaretz On Line would easily prove.
So, I think I’m going to leave the decision of whether or not what I write come from my not knowing the country I live in, listen to radio and watch news on TV in and so on, and whether or not your denouncing it as sheer rhetoric or worse isn’t demagogy in and out of itself. Or perhaps other things.
@Rod, what does this “right/duty to defend oneself” entail, in the context of international relations? For countries that are not a part of the conflict, that is. Does country X’s right to defend itself mean other countries have the moral obligation to help it? Does it mean they should not take a side?
The question of how you define a democracy is an important one, but I think putting is aside for the time being would help clarify the other part of your argument with Menil.
Did Iran have a “right do defend itself” against invading Iraq? Did Kuwait? Did Russia against the Nazis?
Had there not been a world war going on, should the USA have sided with the Russians against Germany? On what moral grounds?
itsadok: I’m not Rod, but I’ll give my opinion: what does “a person’s right to defend himself, or to help defend others” entail? Suppose you go down the street and you see one man repeatedly kicking another man who is lying on the ground, bleeding and shielding his head with his head. Will you help?
Self defense has grey sides. The extent of self defense is usually easy to tell.
It seems to me that the word “interrogate” should’ve been “investigate”.
@itsadok: Let’s remind ourselves again that Rod defined Israel’s “right to defend itself” as, more accurately, the obligation to defend its citizens. I would extend this to say that Israel has an obligation to protect all the population under its rule, including those who live in the occupied territories.
You asked what this entails for international relations. Interestingly, this question has already been discussed by the UN, and the answer that was given was R2P: the Responsibility to Protect (http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop/learn-about-rtop). R2P has two aspects to it: the first is the responsibility of any state to protect its citizens and inhabitants from harm. The second, and much more controversial aspect, is that if a state is unable or unwilling to provide such protection to (part of) its population from war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the like, it becomes the obligation of the international community to intervene, including sending troops in and taking over power from the state if it is uncooperative in this effort to aid its own citizens.
This sheds a different light on the above discussion, I believe. Menil’s argument, for instance, would have been much better served if he didn’t structure it around his (baseless) definition of democracy, but rather, as the UN has, around the question of sovereignty and its legitimacy. According to the UN, a state may only be sovereign as long as it protects its inhabitants from certain evils. Once it ceases to do so, it waives its right for sovereignty.
Indeed, some questions were raised about the need to apply R2P to Israel and/or Gaza during the Cast Lead operation. The decision, evidently, was not to intervene. This decision, or course, does not have to repeat itself in the future.
So, as far as the international community is concerned, self-defense, as defined by Rod, is quite clearly understood to be an obligation of the state, with clear ramifications for the international community.
“I will argue that if, as a result of the actions labeled as self defense, a society goes through a deep change, this isn’t self defense at all – in fact, it is self destruction.”
I have some serious issues with this claim. You are suggesting that a society must be static, that change is equal to destruction. To use your own terms, that societies have some things that are “essential” to their selfness, and if these essential things change, then the society is no more itself. Essentialism, the bogey-word of sociologists, is just that assumption: that you can reduce a group, a society, a gender, into some essential qualities that never change. You yourself refer later on to the “no true Scot” fallacy, but what you said here isn’t far from it. If we accept the assertion that changing the essentials is “self-destructing”, how can we argue against those Orthodox Jews that claim Reform Jews are a danger to the Jewish people – that they are destructive, because they seek to change the essences of the Jewish religion? How can we complain when they engage in acts of “self-defense” that protect them from such destructive forces? Not to mention even missionaries of Christian faiths?
@Dubi Kanengisser: Dubi, I think you’re missing the first part of the argument. Allow me to simplify that:
If as solely a result of its attempts at self defense a society changes, or in other words, if a society undergoes an essential change only in order to defend itself – its values, traditions, chosen way of life and so forth – and turns out at the end losing, as a result of this change that was done solely for self defense purposes, those very same values, traditions and chosen way of life, it had not defended itself at all. Indeed, it had performed an act of self destruction.
Suppose, for example, a community of people on a distant and secluded island. One of the basic elements of their culture is that they think children are sacred and should not be harmed at all means. On the other side of the island lives another community, which holds no such principle. Suppose those two communities collide, and the first community, feeling threatened, executes a plan that leads, knowingly, to the death of all of their rival community’s children. Suppose further that this is a drastic enough move that brings an end to the rivalry. Sure, on paper our community protected itself. They still exist, as the same group of people. But are they the same community, having changed their values to match their enemy’s values in order to defend themselves? I argue that they’re not, and thus that the original community had in fact destroyed itself.
@itsadok: The right to self defense derives from the right to self determination. If we acknowledge that people have the right to live in their chosen communities according to their chosen way of life; if we hold that people have the right to determine what their communities are and which group they see themselves as belonging to, and also what traditions and values this entails, we must also accept that they have a right to defend that community, that desired way of life and that part of the identity of the self of each member in the society. Accepting this does not mean cooperating, it means not condemning them for doing so.
[...] ועירית לינור, לבנה שטרן והתפוררות הדמוקרטיה, ב-IsraLeft. לכו לקרוא. בכלל, מתחיל להיות מעניין [...]
[...] A Duty To Defend Ourselves [...]