Re: Israeli exceptionalism

[Jim Farmelant <farmelantj@xxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:25:42 -0400 Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxx>
writes:
> At 9:05 AM -0400 10/15/03, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> >Especially in light of the fact that the imperialists themselves
> >have never been very scruplous about following the Geneva
> >Conventions and otherwise respecting the laws of warfare which
> >prohibit the deliberate targetting of civilians.
>
> "Other people are doing it" isn't a good argument for doing it even
> in ordinary circumstances -- when "other people" in question are
> imperialists, it's a really bad argument.

But it is a relevant consideration when you are talking
about people who lack the means for waging war
that are available to the imperialists and
their proxies.  Why should those who are
fighting against them impose themselves
constraints that their opponents are unwilling
in practice (as opposed to theory) to accept
for themselve?

>
> At 9:05 AM -0400 10/15/03, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> >The US as you may recall engaged in terror bombings of German and
> >Japanese  cities, firebombed Dresden and Hamburg in Germany, and
> >Tokyo in Japan. And at the end of the war, dropped atomic bombs on
> >Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>
> Terror bombings and atomic bombings had nothing to do with fighting
> fascists (in the case of the latter, they had everything to do with
> the US desire to set the terms of post-war politics to the Soviets
> and the rest of the world) -- they didn't do much even to win the
> war, even if we completely disregarded the moral evaluations of
> them,
> but you know that already.

I would agree with you concerning the atomic bombings
but the terror bombings and the firebombings
were done with the aim of breaking the enemy's
will to fight.  Whether the terror bombings and the
the firebombings actually accomplished their desired
ends is a matter of controversy.  Certainly many
military historians have argued that the terror
bombings that both sides engaged in during WW II
were counterproductive and hardened the determination
on both sides to presevere.  On the other hand
the more recent example of the NATO war against
Yugolsavia suggests that this may no longer be the
case.  That airwar may have now become sufficiently
horrific that it can succeed in breaking the will of the enemy.



>
> At 9:05 AM -0400 10/15/03, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> >And yet WW II is remembered in the US and elsewhere as a "good
> war,"
> >presumably in the sense of having been a just war.
>
> Whether a cause is just and whether means used to win the cause are
> just and expedient are different questions.

Of course, and indeed in discussions of just war theory
there has traditionally been a distinction drawn
between what is called "jus ad bellem" - that is
the justice of the cause, and "jus in bello" - which
refers to the justness of the means used for fighting
a war.  In principle, a war that conforms to the
principles of "jus ad bellem", might be fought
by means that are in violation of the norms of
"jus ad bellem" and vice versa.  In traditional
discussions of just war theory, a war must
conform to both the principles of , "jus in bello",
and "jus ad bellem" for it to be considered a
just war.  In other words both the cause for
which the war is being fought and the means
used for fighting it must be just.  (See the
article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://tinyurl.com/ne8u, for a discussion of just
war theory).

However, I would submit that the evolution of
modern warfare both in terms of the wars
that are fought between imperialist nations
and the wars of national liberation that have
been fought against the imperialist nations
call these principles into question.  The principles
of "jus ad bellem" include the principles of
proportionality, that is one supposed to proportion
the amount of lethal force used in warfare to
the value of the cause for which the war is being
fought, and one is supposed to follow the
principle of discrimination, that is belligerents
are supposed to distinguish between combatants
and civilians, and are not to deliberately target
civilians.  Both principles, it seems to me are
routinely violated in modern warfare.  And it
is also the case that wars of national liberation
have often been fought with extensive violations
of these principles as well.  The Algerians when
they fought for their independence, deliberately
targeted civilians in their bomb attacks.  And
the French routinely used torture and massacres
in their efforts at suppressing the rebellion.
While of course you would condemn the French,
it seems that by your own principle you would
also have to condemn the Algerians as well.

Such considerations have led many people
to embracing pacifism, precisely on the grounds
that it seems unlikely that wars can now a days
be fought in accordance with the principles of
"jus ad bellem", thereby in their minds, ruling
out the effective possibility of a just war.  Some
Catholic moral theologians, including most
famously, the Berrigans, have embraced such
a position. And yet while such a position must
command our respect, it is not one that I think
that we can accept.  I don't think that pacifism
was an option against fascism in the 1940s,
and I don't think it is a realistic option in many
struggle for national liberation either, despite
the arguments of Gandhians.

But if this is the case, then it seems to me that
we must recognize that a war might be just
even if the "good guys" find they have to violate
the principles of "jus ad bellem", especially if
they have reason to believe that such violations
are necessary if they are to have any hope of
prevailing at all.


>
> At 9:05 AM -0400 10/15/03, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> >Given this sort of history, by what right does anyone have for
> >demanding that the Palestinians hold themselves to a higher
> standard?
>
> No one who doesn't care about Palestinian rights has the right to
> demand a higher standard.  But Palestinian themselves and
> Palestinian
> solidarity activists have the duty to demand it.
> --
> Yoshie
>
> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/>
> * Calendars of Events in Columbus:
> <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>,
> <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/>
> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>
>

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.