open Democracy News Analysis - Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries , Menachem Kellner - Comments

Agilis Lux on "Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries "

Agilis Lux — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:57:23 +0000

Menachem,

With the winner of next month elections, I expect to be, the hawkish Netanyahu, he will govern in a coalition with far right rejectionists and advocates of "ethnic cleansing".
Not that this is a asymmetry, but given the fact that most Israelis seems to have generally given up on the idea of a peace agreement any time soon (and for the foreseeable future) no Israeli government with the will to undertake a pull-out of settlers from the West-Bank (which is essentially to any two state solution) because it would provoke an Israeli civil war. In Germany they called that fighting for “Lebensraum”. Your own collegue at the very same university, Ilan Pappe devotes two chapters of his book "The Making of the Arab- Israeli Conflict, 1947-1951" to these issues.

Agilis Lux on "Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries "

Agilis Lux — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:41:16 +0000

this it is WHY it is called OPENDEMOCRACY!

janinsanfran on "Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries "

janinsanfran — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:47:43 +0000

"Israel wants to live in peace next to a thriving Palestine ..." This is an assertion for which there is not one shred of evidence. The evidence as far as I can see it is that Israel wants to expropriate Palestinian land and stop having to deal with the existence of Palestinians, but what ever means are necessary.

Jaap on "Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries "

Jaap — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:08:51 +0000

Mr. Kellner's story is very illustrative of the Zionist attitude:

Zionists want to have as large a part as possible of Palestine for the Jewish people, but at the same time they want to see themselves as being morally superior.

In reality these goals cannot be achieved at the same time. In the Zionist Universe however, they can. The way they do this is by constructing a very distorted view of reality.

amyrite on "Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries "

amyrite — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:17:04 +0000

I am dismayed at the fact that Opendemocracy publishes such biased justifications for the current Israeli war and I hope mr. Keller sits up quickly in realization of what his country is doing and does something about it instead of juggling the facts so that they fit.

Semantics rule on "Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries "

Semantics rule — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:52:32 +0000

Dear Steve M and others,

I think that your words on semantics are wise, although I disagree with your politics and strategic assesment.

But before I argue my point, I have to ask you to be forgiving about my use of the English language. I am in fact not native English and it therefore means that it is quite an effort for me to be coherent while writing and to make sense to my non-Flemish reader. So, allow for the odd linguistic failure and focus on the spirit of my words.

Your analysis about the meaning of 'genocide' and even the frivolous reference to the wrong use of the word 'decimate' are very enlighting. Especially your reference to the numbers is insightful. Killing 1000 people out of 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza does not qualify as 'genocide'.

Apart from your linguistic clarification, which is spot-on, and hence its legal ramifications, I take issue with your politics. First of all we disagree about the number of deaths and their impact. Second, I believe that the semantics of term 'terrorist (infra)structure' in the IDF discours bear ideologically and strategically genocidal overtones. (In case you are only interested in the semantics rather than casualty numbers, please forward towards the end of this article.)

I believe, it should be acknowledged that 1000 direct combat deaths, i.e. people killed by direct injury in a three week period is rather high in human terms. (If you do not believe this number to be correct, I will need a further clarification from you which data you are using and reasons why the data used by the ICRC and the UN should be discounted. I am always open for suggestions. In the meanwhile, I will stick to these numbers, rather than 100 deaths as you suggested.)

For example, it means that every person who knows 1500 different people in his life has seen one of them die these last weeks.

This might seem an abstract thought, but bear with me.

How many people have you met in your life, including colleagues, (childhood) friends, classmates, family members, neighbours, acquintances? If you add up the faces, the figure will be well over 1500.

Still, you might say, 'the deaths of my neighbours and colleagues do not really affect me, the deaths of Palestinians even less'. This might be true.

However, epidemological and statistical studies on the cost of wars, show that direct combat deaths reveal only a fraction of the human cost.

The ratio of combat deaths in relation to those injured is on average in the contemporary modern conflict 1 to 4. That means that for every 1000 Gazans that died on average another 4000 got injured.

If we go back to the calculations about the people you know. 5500 Gazans killed or wounded directly out of 1.5 million in the last three weeks, means mathematically that one in every 272,72727 people you know one has been directly affected in the sense that they have lost life or limb, because simple cuts and bruises tend not to be counted as real injuries in times of war.

Adjusting the figure downwards: For every group of 272 people you know somebody had a scrape with faith in the last days. For all of us who have started using Facebook in the last two years, it is easy to visualize what that means. Your network is shrinking. One of those hypothetical Facebook friends has died or gotten injured by military equipment and its effects.

Without getting into this gruesome tally further, I would like to remind you that people who have lost a house, lost their jobs, lost a piece of their mental health, have reduced life expectancy due to unsatisfactory healthcare, have not been included in the data so far. If it would the human cost would be even higher.

You might reply something in the line of: 'war is tough', 'people die in war', or something similar. This assertion would then legitimize those deaths and injuries, which you would claim are unfortunately caused by the IDF despite their best efforts to keep civilian casualties down.

And at this point I want to ask my linguistic question and make my strategic point.

You write that the IDF aims to destroy all those structures that Hamas uses, and you imply it is justified in doing so. This term 'structures' echoes what the IDF calls 'terrorist infrastructures', if I am not mistaken.

Could you then please apply you linguistical knife-like mind to this word that is so pregnant with ambiguities?

What, in a practical, material, and pintointable sense of the word does 'structure' mean? Is it a launching pad, a house, a street, a district, a stronghold, a village, a town, a polity, a society, or a people? Forgive me the rethoric.

But I do consider it to be of utmost importance. The ambiguities surrounding the use of the words 'structure' or 'infrastructure' hold a genocidal promise.

If you check out its website, you will read that the IDF studies old texts by known insurgents like Guevarra, Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, but also the FNL, etc. The point being from a tactical point of view: know your enemy.

A popular organsation like Hamas, on the other hand, has clearly taken Mao's dictum to hearth. Mao wrote that the guerilla/insurgent/terrorist should reside among the people as a fish in the water. In other words, the water is the fish's infrastructure, that what gives it life, food, strenght and cover.

In any case, the IDF states that Hamas uses the Palestinian populace as a human shield, suggesting that the Palestinians are Hamas' victims in need of rescue. Why then does it keep pounding the shield if it is serious about human casualties? The myth of David and Goliath teaches us that smart tactics can bypass shields and armour. This being said, let us return to the strategic implications of the semantic ambiguities surrounding the use of the concept 'terrorist (infra-)structure'.

The implication of engaging Hamas head on with military might means in the minds of IDF strategists physically destroying Hamas' infrastructure, its water: that is the populace.

To sum up, thanks for the clarification that 1000 dead out of 1.5 million is not genocide. Point well taken, and I applaud your commitment to semantic clarity in service of rational debate.

Please, take that semantic analysis further and apply it to the words 'structure' and 'infrastructure' in the IDF discourse.

Destroying the infrastructure of a guerilla/ insurgent/terrorist group comes down to a genocidal command: to deliberately target and destroy a supportive population. And from a strategic point of view it is not the best way to catch the fish.

At the end of the day the IDF should learn how to shift tactics, start thinking outside of the box and learn how to catch the fish without poisoning the water.

Emekmiyahu on "Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries "

Emekmiyahu — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:31:00 +0000

Asymmetries to ponder...

Asymmetry 1: Security Council binding resolution - 14 for, one abstention.

Asymmetry 2: General Assembly Special Emergency Session non-binding resolution - 142 for, 4 against, 8 abstentions.

Bonus asymmetry round: thanks to persistent falsehoods contained in the state-orchestrated Hasbara campaign, and thanks to evolution of the internet, vast swathes of people across the globe have had their attentions drawn to the verity of Israel's being a false democracy based on apartheid principles, and Israel's having secured its status as a 'Jewish state' through waging a premeditated program of terrorism, murder and land theft against indigenous populations per Herzl Zionism. A program which continues to this day. There is no escaping the fact that the State of Israel is the tainted fruit of a poisonous tree.

KappNetss on "Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries "

KappNetss — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 03:54:08 +0000

The main point the author wants to point out is that Hamas will not disappear but will be more strongly supported by the people.

There is an oriental saying "even an insect an inch long has half an inch of soul." Insect is a cornered someone and soul means his/hers adversarial spirit (against humiliation) unproportionally great compared with the body size. The Palestinians are cornered but will not lose pride.

Israel is not winning the mind of Palestinians; Israel is not finding a way out of the swamp because they are too selfish, relying only on their military strength.

John Partington on "Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries "

John Partington — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:27:54 +0000

Most Palestinians want peace. Most enlightened Jews want peace,but Ehud Olmert announced in May 2006 to the US Congress that the Jews had a right to the entire land of Israel.
The rare informative Israeli politicians along with an American regional ambassador and US intelligence officers have said that Israel, in the 80's let Yassin (member of the Muslim Brotherhood) into Gaza with a licence to funding to create Islamic schools etc. (seeds of Hamas) hoping to undermine Fatah and kill Palestinian nationalism just as the the British once tried to undermine Nassar in Egypt. The balance got lost and Palestinians now have to pay for that wicked ploy.
I believe the war, planned over 6 months, started because an Israeli election was coming, Bush was leaving and Olmert and kin needed to look tough.
One should read an article posted on Palestine Chronicle called '500 Citizens of Sderot Contradict the Israeli Government', by Janine Robarts. Another informative article is at Foreign Policy In Focus, called 'Does Israeli Intelligence Lie?' which will reference you to an article that appeared in Haaretz. A real eye-opener. So much for Mr. Kellner

popper99 on "Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries "

popper99 — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:28:35 +0000

To me there are two obvious assymetries.

One side gets 3billion dollars military aid and the other does not; this results in an assymertry in the number of F16s and tanks.

One side welcomes foreign journalists into the conflict; one forbids.

Bob Katt on "Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries "

Bob Katt — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:02:29 +0000

oD shouldn't have put up Kellner's 'article' because his reasoning is purile and sentimental and his views flagrantly racist. It is an abuse of free speech.

The reason Israel is attacking Gaza at this moment is simple. Even a child could understand it (but not a child in Gaza because Israel's terror is driving Gazan children mad with fear.) It is this: Israel anticipated Obama's intention to talk to Hamas. It broke the ceasefire provocatively and got the rockets it wanted. Then ploughed bloodily into the area to kill as many people who could be linked to Hamas as possible, and a lot more besides.

Kellner is incapable of understanding this because he has put his intelligence into suspended animation so he can blind himself to the true nature of his beloved country.

Not logged in on "Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries "

Not logged in — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:41:46 +0000

Per day of the war and the twenty-open the Gaza Strip, the number of Palestinian martyrs to 1154 people including 435 children, and more than 4850 wounded, including more than 400 in a very serious condition.
According to medical sources, 21 Palestinians killed since the dawn hours Thursday, and among them are also more than 100 elderly people in addition to the five journalists and 13 doctors and paramedic targeted by Israeli bombing while trying to save the injured in different parts of the sector.
Local sources described the knife in Gaza that the Israeli offensive, which began in the twenty-seventh of December last, reached its peak on Thursday morning invaded large areas of Gaza City and the north-west of the city, especially in the Tel al-Hawa, which was besieged by hundreds of families of martyrs and the injured without allowing the arrival of ambulances it.
One of the families in the besieged Tel al-Hawa district, north-west of Gaza City, said that Israeli tanks surrounding the tower engineers with more than 27 family and fired in the direction of the move in the building.
He stressed that the Israeli army blew up the buildings and apartments that stand in its way, despite the presence of a large number of families who did not leave their homes, despite the cries of women and children inside the apartment.
They pointed out that they lost contact with his parents, who were lying about 50 meters in the industry since the street hours after their home was bombed, without access to the fate of the family.
The group of women in Otalegnha calls via the satellite channels that hundreds of children are held in one apartment in a tower in the Tel al-Hawa Israeli tanks shelled the towers are random, and prevent the exit of any of the population.
In the meantime, the Israeli shelling continued throughout the Gaza Strip, amid reports of dozens of victims without being able to reach medical teams to it, despite the intensity of the shelling in the vicinity of Gaza City neighborhoods in particular, especially the Tel al-Hawa and Sheikh Ajlin in the north west of the city.

janos.boris on "Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries "

janos.boris — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:24:21 +0000

What distresses me beyond the sight of death and destruction is not Menachem's reasoned and thought-out arguments but the maddeningly biassed and hate-filled comments which are in the majority, and reveal not only the usual anti-Semitic undercurrents that are noticeable in such thinking but also utter historical ignorance, along with the usual cavalier attitutude to the facts, which just goes on and on. And always with an anti-Israeli edge. First and foremost: in 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted a unanimous decision ruling that a Jewish and an Arab entity should be created in the place of the former British mandate called Palestine (there were no such people as "Palestinians" then, only Arabs; I fully acknowledge, of course, that today there defnitely IS a Palestinian identity). The Jews accepted it and declared their own state. The Arabs did not : their unified armies attacked the Jewish state instaead. Which means that A PALESTINIAN STATE COULD HAVE BEEN CREATED 60 YEARS AGO without any problem, had Israel's Arab neighbours chosen to accept the relevant UN resolution rather than disregard it and go to war.

Second: Israel accepted the two-state solution years ago, and was twice on the brink of signing a peace agreement, once accepting 96 per cent of all Palestinian demands. (Camp David.)The majority of Isrealis are fully aware that their only gurantee for security and peace is a peaceful, relatively prosperous Palestine, and not a gurerrilla camp whose only objective is its destruction.

Currently there are two separate entities visá vis Israel, both of which claim to represent the interests of all Palestinians. In the West Bank, with great difficuty, a Western model was acccepted along with Western money. People struggle a lot, yes, with Israeli restrictions, too, and basically work (but who the hell cares about working Palestinians?Dead ones are so much more interesting!) and children go to school (but who, in the media, gives a damn about Palestinian children going to school, when they make for such great visuals when they are dead?) In Gaza, on Iranian money, they elected Hamas, which is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, indeed, that is its raison d'etre, as is destablished in its charter. Money is the economy. rossross: when exactly did Hamas officially say that it might accept the existence of Israel at any time? All it talks about is the utter destruction the "Cusader-Zionist entity". No, Hamas is a radical Islamic organization spreading and using the same kind of anti-Western, anti-civilatzion, premodernist rhetoric coupled with a frightining death cultt (a typically fascist phenomenon) that al Qaeda is spreading. I simply don't understand some of you people: what makes you so blind (or how can your hatred of Israel blind you so much) that you actually support an organization like that? All you want to hear or read is the ritual vilification of Israel as a mass murderer and ganster .Anyone saying anything that contravenes this ever so slightly makes you are roaring with outrage.

dutchie57 on "Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries "

dutchie57 — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:04:01 +0000

After all the other comments here I would simply like to tell Prof. Kellner thanks for another perspective even though it seems he has really stirred up a hornets nest. I can understand what you have said although I do not agree with it 100% but it's given me some food for thought. Wish there was more clear writing out there.

Illegitimi non carborundum

SteveM on "Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries "

SteveM — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:29:54 +0000

Hamas has repeatedly stated that it will not accept Israel's right to exist, and that any truce they agree to will simply be used to strengthen itself for future conflict with the aim of destroying Israel.

The leaders of Hamas have also repeatedly stated that they consider Jews, as such, to be evil and accursed of God.

The leaders of Hamas have also expressed total disinterest in a "Palestinian state"; they're not nationalists of any sort. They want a global Caliphate. Deranged as it may seem, they really take this stuff seriously.

This is simple fact, available to anyone who cares to do a little Googling for the relevant statements.

Israel has repeatedly stated over the past 20 years that it is prepared to accept a Palestinian state, along roughly the 1948 boundaries, provided that such a state accepts Israel, accepts the legitimacy of Jewish statehood, suppresses any terrorism by irreconcilable elements, and renounces any further claims against Israel -- the so-called "right of return" for the remote descendants of refugees, for instance.

Just as Greece and Turkey have accepted the population exchanges which took place after the Graeco-Turkish war in 1921, and the Germans, Poles and Czechs have accepted those which followed WWII at about the same time as the creation of Israel.

All that most Israelis want is "us here, them over there"; to be left alone, in other words. There are enthusiasts who want the whole of Biblical Israel, but they're a minority and get political traction only because the Palestinians continue in their absolute would-be genocidal rejectionism -- openly, with Hamas, and disguised by lies, in the case of Fatah.

The Palestinians have repeatedly rejected this offer, and every time the Israelis have taken the boot off their necks -- by removing roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, for example, or by withdrawing from Gaza in 2005 -- the result has been further attacks. Only physical force, as exemplified by the separation wall, has proved effective in preventing attempts to massacre Israeli civilians.

Israel is under no obligation to endanger itself and its citizens to make the Palestinians feel better.

They rejected the British partition plan in the 1930's (which would have given them 80% of Mandate Palestine), they rejected the UN plan in 1947, and they've rejected every compromise since.

Hence they are the authors of their own miseries. They keep putting things to the wager of battle, losing, and then complaining about the results.

They seem to think there should be some special exemption which frees them from the consequences of defeat.

News flash: the world doesn't work that way.

Israel’s Gaza war: five asymmetries , Menachem Kellner

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:52:58 +0000

I was at home in Haifa reading Freeman J Dyson's autobiography, Disturbing the Universe, last night and came across a passage which disturbed me mightily. Dyson had worked in a research capacity for Britain's Bomber Command during the second world war and came to the realisation that "a good cause can become bad if we fight it with means that are indiscriminately murderous." In the end, he thought that German fighter-pilots defending German homes were morally superior to British bomber-crews trying to bomb those homes.

Menachem Kellner is professor of Jewish history and thought at Haifa University, Israel
That made me sit up, as I support Israel's current attack on Gaza and wondered if perhaps the means we had adopted had sullied the country's ends. In the end, I decided that they had not and that in my judgment Israel had to continue the bombing. Let me explain why.

The reason lies in five asymmetries. The first asymmetry has to do with ends: Israel wants to live in peace next to a thriving Palestine while Hamas wants to destroy Israel. The aim of Operation Cast Lead is not the destruction of Gaza, but of Hamas's ability to threaten Israel. To that end, Israel must see to it that the tunnels between Rafah, Egypt, and Rafah, Gaza are interdicted and remain closed.

Egyptian collusion or incompetence, or both, has allowed Hamas to smuggle a host of arms into Egypt, and from Egypt into Gaza: Iranian and Russian rockets in the hundreds (if not thousands), RPG's, machine-guns, anti-aircraft guns, and tons of explosives.

The second asymmetry has to do with means. Israel seeks to avoid civilian casualties while being fully aware that they cannot be avoided if the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) are to defend their people; but huge efforts are made to minimise these (among other things, by warning Gazans in advance of attacks that will endanger them). Hamas, on the other hand, has indiscriminately fired thousands of rockets at towns and cities in Israel since the withdrawal from the Gaza strip in August 2005.

Providentially, few Israelis have been killed by these rockets, but a million people have been and continue to be terrorised by them. When you have an enemy who uses children as shields, either the children get hurt or the enemy wins. This is an asymmetrical zero-sum game between Israel and Hamas: if they win, Israel is destroyed; if Israel wins, Gazans - albeit at tragic expense - are freed from the thuggish terrorism of Hamas, and people in the south of Israel can live without the constant threat of rockets.

The third asymmetry here might best be understood by using Google Earth to view Gaza. Look at the Israel side of the (aptly named) "green line": intensive agriculture. Look at the Gaza side (and nearby Egypt): desert. When I think of Israel, I think of birth, of building, of literally turning the desert green. When I think of Hamas I think of death, of destruction, of turning thriving farms in Gush Katif into launching-pads for rockets. I am not being simply prejudiced here: these are objective realities. Hamas might have devoted its energies to turning Gaza into the Singapore or Hong Kong of the Mediterranean. Google Earth reveals the nihilism at its heart.

The fourth asymmetry, a moral one, is here. Hamas and its supporters celebrate the death of Israeli children; Israeli TV, radio, and newspapers are full of expressions of anguish over the civilian toll in Gaza. I would be embarrassed were such not the case.

The fifth and final asymmetry is related to the TV reporting of the conflict by international news outlets. To watch these from inside Israel is often a bizarre experience. The reporters have a set narrative and pre-determined terms ("cycle of violence", "disproportionate Israeli response", "occupied Gaza", and the like) which rarely let uncomfortable facts get in the way - for example, that Israel treats wounded Palestinians in Barzilay hospital in rocket-torn Ashkelon, while Egyptian forces have fired on Palestinians trying to get out of Gaza.

The media asymmetry is also reflected in much of the international press. It blames the suffering of Gazans (which I do not for a moment belittle) on Israel even though dozens of trucks containing aid supplies are sent from Israel into Gaza every day, while the Egyptians receive little criticism for their own restrictive policy. It criticises Israel when Hamas too rejects out of hand United Nations calls for a ceasefire. The kind of lazy conformism that entraps influential media, and which combines knee-jerk endorsement of Palestinian positions with equally unthinking condemnation of Israeli, bears a share of responsibility for every mangled body in Gaza.

Men, women, and children of Gaza, many of whom have nothing to do with Hamas, and through no fault of their own, are victims in this battle, and that is surely tragic. To allow Hamas to continue in its indiscriminately murderous way would be no less tragic.

Also by Menachem Kellner in openDemocracy:

"Israel reverses gravity" (29 March 2006)
"The war in Lebanon: a view from Haifa" (7 August 2006)

Among openDemocracy's articles on Israel's conflicts:

Eric Silver, "A united, worried Israel" (20 July 2006)
Thomas O'Dwyer, "Israel's post-heroic disaster" (30 April 2007)
Laurence Louër, "Arabs in Israel: on the move" (20 April 2007)
Volker Perthes, "Beyond peace: Israel, the Arab world, and Europe" (22 January 2008)
Yossi Alpher, "Gaza's agency, Israel's choice" (29 January 2008)
Tony Klug, "Two states for two peoples: solution or illusion?" (21 July 2008)
Avi Shlaim, "Israel and Gaza: rhetoric and reality" (7 January 2009)
Paul Rogers, "Gaza: the Israel-United States connection" (7 January 2009)

Average rating

(5 votes)