It's a pity that Israel accidentally bombed the UN bunker yesterday...a pity Israel didn't bomb the UN headquarters instead!I had some further thoughts, particularly in light of Steve's response to my comments on the original piece above.
I think some of the major questions to ask are:
1) Does the UN actually bring about peace, and/or serve any other grand purposes?
2) Does violence beget violence?
Regarding (1), I would point to the futility of the UN troops in Somalia and Kosovo in actually getting some of the things done that needed to be done. However, I would also point out that it is not the sole responsibility of the US (although we provide a hell of a disproportionate amount of UN resources) to maintain global peace and monitor/decide global political issues. And due to this fact, if we (US) can't do it alone, then by default, it will fall to a global coalition to do so. I do not know the statistics on this, but I would be willing to wager that UN troops get attacked much less, on average, than a unilateral military force occupying a foreign country.
Regarding (2), I made a comment about the movie Munich, and how it awakened me to the futility of retribution as a means to peace:
I'm not a leftie in the sense that you mean it, but I suppose I see this cycle of violence as cruel in its unending circularity. Watching Munich was a beautiful narrative for convincing me of that.Steve responded with the following points (italicized) and my responses are appended:
How many people think this doesn't just motivate the crazies further, and encourage their efforts to acquire serious weapons, as well as make those with access to such weapons more likely to sympathize with them and give them over?
1.We don’t have the luxury of choosing our battles. Our enemies don’t give us a range of preferred options.
While it is certainly true that "enemies" don't give us such a luxury, it is also true that our response to said enemies is certainly a range of options. The problem with responding to suicide bombers and other such terrorists is that they are a relatively small faction, living amongst a civilian population, whose ideology is furthered when we kill them (and produce so-called martyrs).
2.No, we can’t kill every jihadi on the planet. But that’s not the point.
The police can’t apprehend every criminal or preempt every crime. Should we therefore disband the police force?
The huge difference here is that police respond with tactical precision -- they kill the criminals. If there were some way to ensure the same for the jihadis, my point would be rather moot, and we could, theoretically, wipe them out over and over again.
This was never about winning once and for all. It’s about risk management. Cutting your enemies down to size. Keeping the threat-level on a scale that permits some semblance of normality.
But as we occupy foreign lands, and as Israel bombs civilians (Qana), the thread only increases. No risk is being "managed" here, fuel is only being added to the fires.
3.As I said in my piece on just-war criteria, the way to end the cycle of violence is through the application of overwhelming force rather than proportional force.
If we had used proportional force in Japan, Japan would still be a warrior culture.
Japan was a clear enemy, coalesced around a national identity. Terrorists are not, and coalesce around religious ideologies which cannot be altered. So long as the religious message exists, these terrorists will follow it. We simply cannot apply such force to terrorists, because in so doing, we invariably destroy a large number of civilians, and we turn every moderate family member of a "martyr" into willing holy war combatants in so doing. For every one we kill, we make 4 more.
4. Not all Muslims nurse a death-wish. They may support the suicide-bomber, throw him a stag party before he leaves to do his homicidal thing, but they don’t strap themselves into the explosive vest.
I didn't say that. What I said is that this violence is circular and unending, not that the current or present supply of willing participants in said violence is unending.
It’s better to make your enemies love you than fear you—but if you can’t make them love you, then I’ll settle for fear.
And that's the idea here--that if we make them fear, they'll not attack? No. They do not fear DEATH. How can you make someone who does not fear death fear your "overwhelming force"?
Steve then closes out the post with a rejoinder to my mention of Munich, and specifically how it made me seriously consider whether the vicious cycle of violence can ever be ended in itself (via more violence). He mentions this article on Townhall, where our writer remarks:
Though the film attempts to portray the Israeli response as morally useless -- with "cycle of violence" and "it accomplishes nothing since they just substitute a new terrorist for the one last killed" arguments -- the film is nevertheless a tremendous compliment to the Israelis.The writer here does not address the root argument -- whether or not violence begets violence. He simply justifies Israel's response, and uses the conscience of the Israeli fighters as evidence that they are "better people" than the Muslim terrorists. I would ask Steve how this addresses the real root issue?
The reason that Osama is still alive is that our very own CIA taught him survivalist training in Afghanistan, when the occupying force of the time were the Soviets. The reason that we are occupying Iraq is because we were stupid enough to arm Saddam years ago against the Iranians, and provide him with the ways and means to produce chemical and biological weapons. We sow our own harvest, when we leave seeds of violence in foreign fields, and we then reap the whirlwind of our foreign policies.
I support the right to exist of both Israel and Palestine. I also strongly oppose the policies of both. So long as each side undermines the possibility of peace by responding to violence with violence, the cycle of poverty and martyrdom will continue there.
If their hate will not dissipate even when we all sit down to talk about our basic rights to life, and our mutual commitment to ensure basic human rights and needs are protected, then perhaps at least the hate the breeds violence will. One thing is for certain -- tyranny and fear never produced a cowering populace for long: the USA, the French Revolution, and numerous civil wars are historical testimony to that fact. And the fear breeds a certain desperation which naturally dispenses violence out of survival instinct. If fear were just an emotion in a vacuum, then we would prefer it over hate. But when hate and fear combine into desperation, then violence is inevitable, and it will never end until neither side fears for their own life.
Steve's motto appears to be, "oderint dum metuant": let them hate so long as they fear (originally from Caligula). Unfortunately, fear only fuels desperate violence.
________________
Technorati tags: Politics
Daniel, the problem with the UN is that they cannot uphold the peace if the people their troops are among do not want peace. There has been a UN presence in Israel since 1948. How many wars have they failed to prevent?
ReplyDeleteIn the final analysis, we have to conclude two things about the current situation.
1. If a peacekeeping force were sent in, it would either find Hezbollah attacking it, or would find itself in this situation a few years down the line. What is needed is an international force to train the Lebanese Army to destroy Hezbollah. But the will must be there.
2. Both sides in the conflict must know that they cannot triumph. While hearts nurse secret thoughts of victory, there can be no real peace.
What is to be done? The international community must get tough on non-state actors like Hezbollah. Israel has to believe the world is serious about defending its rights to exist before it will listen to us.
On tyranny, your problem, Daniel, is that your logic is faulty. The Governments of George III and Louis XVI were weak, not strong, as were that of Charles I, the Shah of Iran in 1979 and Nicholas II. The problem with tyranny is not that it doesn't work, but that it requires an iron hand. Always. Any attempt to conciliate is then interpreted as weakness, any thought of human rights as surrender.
And I'm afraid that, however noble your view of Palestine and Israel is that asking one of them to break the cycle of violence is rather like asking two men engaged in a duel to the death to do so. Neither will stop, as neither trusts the other not to take advantage, and who can blame them, when they have a history of doing precisely that? I remember Ehud Barak's peace plan, which vanished in a welter of violence, Shimon Peres's government falling to the sound of Katushas.
No, I'm very much afraid more blood will have to be shed. The cup will have to be filled to overflowing. Old men, women and children. More teenagers blown to pieces, either by the other side or themselves. The duelists have to fight on to the point exhaustion. It's tragic, but what can be done? If we intervene now we risk getting caught in the middle, yet the damage the duelists are causing is immense. We cannot disarm both sides simultaneously, and if US aid to Israel ends, we know darn well that the Persian at the end of the bar will pass the Palestinian a revolver.
Of course, if the Palestinians weren't dirt poor and living in squalour (and ditto the Lebanese), then the idea of being martyrs for a cause would fade.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I think that if Hezbollah and Hamas stopped their attacks, then Israel would leave them alone. Look at Egypt and the Sinai. Trouble is, Israel is willing to stop, but the Government cannot ignore public opinion, which is in favour of revenge.
And if you want a long tyranny, look at Saddam Hussein's reign, the Assad Dynasty in Syria and the House of Kim in North Korea. Or China. Their subjects fear and hate them, but know the mailed fist is too strong. Trouble is, you chaps believe that Slave-Owner Jefferson's propaganda. If you'd wanted abolition, you should have stuck with us here. Tyranny? You should have seen the Spanish and the Russians!
Hiraeth,
ReplyDeleteI certainly don't mean to imply that there is a simple solution to this problem, but simply put: the cycle of violence will not be ended from within (via more violence). History has proven this over and over.
The only other option is diplomacy and hard work and compromise.