On the 15th of September a UN fact finding mission found strong evidence that Israel committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict between December 2008 and January 2009. The report found that the Israeli imposed blockade before the siege amounted to collective punishment, during the siege houses, factories, wells, schools, hospitals, police stations and other public buildings were targeted, and also during the siege Israel was “systematically reckless” in its use of white phosphorus.[i]
Yet Israel is our ally, they serve our geo-political interest. So Israeli crimes are justified when they are exposed or more often than not go unnoticed in public discourse. Not only does the United States look the other way in the face of Israeli crimes, but the United States actively supports the Israeli state militarily in the form of arms, financially in terms of aid,[ii] and politically by the dozens of UN Security Council resolution vetoes that are critical of Israeli policies.[iii]
This all seems clear and well-documented. But three powerful responses to this line of reasoning beg to be acknowledged.
First, as one could claim, this above view is unbalanced and neglects, to the possible point of anti-Semitism, the violations of international law by the Palestinians. And it must be admitted that the Palestinians have also committed violations of international law. The recently published UN Fact-Finding Mission admits that armed Palestinian groups by firing their imprecise rockets also “constitute a deliberate attack against the civilian population” of Israel.[iv] But the important difference is the United States government does not militarily support the armed Palestinian groups. And if the United States did, all things being equal, it should not be supported as well. Iran is criticized for supporting these armed Palestinian groups, but if both parties are guilty of violations of international law, then how can we justify military support for Israel.
The second response has been delivered by many speakers. This response states that Israel is “justified” to some extent in its crimes because the Israeli army is protecting their state and with bombs falling on Israeli children, Israel had to act, and given the uncertainties of war such crimes inevitably happened. The part of the argument dealing with the uncertainties of war can easily be dismissed because it is not a rogue bomb or two that is the issue, but it is Israeli policy that is in violation of international law: increased settlement expansion, the separation wall, the use of white phosphorus, the systematic bombing of civilian targets, and the collective punishment of the Palestinian people who have no state to defend. The aspect of the argument which effectively states that the Palestinians started the conflict earlier this year and into last and Israel had to act neglects that both sides violated the terms of the ceasefire.[v] And also neglects the problematic distinction between terrorism and counter-terrorism which usually reveal more about a particular state’s interest rather than actual causality.
This brings us to the last response that I have encountered with many people organizing anti-war issues with Univ. of North Dakota Students for a Democratic Society. While previous assumption on my part dealt with the ethical principles of consistency of judgment despite state interest and the withdrawal of support if our government is supporting violations of international laws, my appeal to ethics may miss the point. Governments or states do not, should not, or cannot act in accordance with ethical principles, but only in accordance with the given interest of that state. Thus US involvement in the overthrow of the democratically elected socialist president Salvador Allende in 1973 made sense because our appeals to democracy is useful when it serves “US interest” but if it does not the state will act in its own interest. And Israel serves US interests in the region.
This response I am willing to concede, but the point I will not give up. Even if a state will act in its own interest we must ask: what element of society attempts to incorporate further steps to justice, equality, and peace within the social system? The answer in my mind is progressive social movements, collective action and organizing, or a countervailing social force that helps to curve the ark of history towards justice. Given concessions to realpolitik positions, US support for Israeli crimes makes sense, but it does not make it just. If my analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is close enough to grant my points, and if we can agree that the US should not actively support egregious violations of international law, then the US ought to stop militarily supporting Israel. And it is up to progressive social movements to change state policy.
Bio:
Isham Christie, a senior in philosophy at the University of North Dakota, is a member of Students for a Democratic Society.
[i] UN Press Release, “UN Fact Finding Mission finds strong evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity…” 15 September 2009.
[ii] Congressional Research Service Report to Congress, “US Foreign Aid to Israel”, Updated January 2,2008.
[iv] UN Press Release. 15 September 2009
[v] Bronner, Ethan “Gaza Truce May Be Revived by Necessity” New York Times, Dec. 19, 2008
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/world/middleeast/20mideast.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Ethan%20Bronner%20December%202008%20gaza&st=cse>
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate