This series is about Israel’s policies in Gaza. I think they’re so unconscionable that I can’t believe they’re up for debate even among Jews — and yet they are. Instead of criticising Israel, I invite you to explore the basis and consequences of a pro-Israel’s-policy view. I’m not naive about changing minds but gotta try. This is for you if you: (1) support Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank (2) consider Palestinians and Israelis to be equally human, their lives equally valuable and (3) don’t consider Jews to be a superior race.
Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9
Imagine a country where the government is trying to win a war against a major terrorist organisation. The organisation is fighting to make part of the country independent for the ethnic minority they claim to represent. They engage in brutal tactics. They conduct scores of suicide bombings, including by women who have disguised themselves as pregnant to get past security. They kill members of government forces. They kill civilians. They train and use child soldiers. They use their own population as human shields. They’ve even killed who surrendered to them on the promise of safety.
Imagine that the government has engaged them in multiple peace talks, despite the political troubles they bring among the hardliners of their own constituency who think negotiations are appeasement. All the talks fall through and it’s clearly the fault of the terrorist organisation (as confirmed by the third party negotiators).
Finally, after multiple attacks, the government is able to take the upper hand militarily. They push on despite international criticism, knowing that their main obligation is not to public opinion but to their own citizens.
They’re determined to rid their country of terrorism once and for all.
During the final campaign, the government is almost universally condemned for indiscriminate targeting of civilian infrastructure including the shelling of hospitals and the bombing of places where refugees have taken shelter. This is done by major international and third party organisations that have no personal investment in the outcome.
While the government seeks to limit the scope of the conflict to avoid a civilian bloodbath, the terrorists are not interested in this. They fight from among places containing civilians and use them as human shields. Tens of thousands of civilians are cooped up in a tiny area, caught between the fighting.
Still, the absolute moral imperative is just too great ““ the country cannot be held hostage by the terrorists. Facing an onslaught of international condemnation, the government is finally able to defeat the terrorist organisation once and for all.
This isn’t a hypothetical and of course I’m not talking about Israel and Palestine either. The above is the exact description of the 26 year civil war between the Sri Lankan Army (SLA) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). From the SLA’s POV of course.
The war’s finale was in May 2009, with tens of thousands of civilians trapped in an area the size of Central Park New York, fired upon by the SLA. Estimates of the numbers of civilians killed directly from the army’s shelling of the no fire zone range from 6,500 to 20,000. There are also scores of accounts of other war crimes, including executions of civilians and other atrocities. Many of them have video footage, with lots of pushback about the material being manipulated/manufactured etc.
There was an international outcry about the actions of both parties including calls to investigate the SLA for war crimes. With Russia and China blocking more serious repercussions at the Security Council, the UN did not proceed.
Do you agree with Russia and China that the SLA should not be charged with war crimes?
Is there any reason for a third-party observer with no ties to the Sinhalese or Tamil communities (and no ties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict either) to doubt that the SLA committed war crimes?
A few extra details about the conflict:
- The SLA let all civilians who could escape the conflict leave. The deaths did not occur as they were leaving and caught in the crossfire. Most civilian deaths were people who were trapped in the no fire zone.
- The LTTE’s military capability, brutality and existential threat to the Sri Lankan state (and to civilians) were orders of magnitude more serious than the threat Hamas is described as having for Israel. It’s not even a serious comparison. The LTTE had thousands of soldiers. It was able to kill thousands of SLA soldiers and policemen on an ongoing basis. It was a terrorist organisation with access to military aircraft. Their use of civilians as human shields was orders of magnitude worse than even the most right-wing supporter of Israel attributes to Hamas.
Part 1 | More to come
Yep, comments are closed. There are plenty of other venues to respond that don’t involve me paying to host pro-IDF rhetoric. I must be a coward and an enemy of Freeze PeachTM. What am I afraid of???
0 Comments